Case law

Baby v. State

172 Md. App. 588 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Feb 9, 2007

Expert testimony describing PTSD or rape trauma syndrome may be admissible, however, when offered for purposes other than simply to establish that the offense occurred. … Shall have and enjoy all such rights liberties immunities privileges and free customs within this Province as any naturall born subject of England hath or ought to have or enjoy in the Realm of England by force or vertue

Kimmel v. Safeco Insurance Co.

116 Md. App. 346 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jul 2, 1997

A party cannot establish the existence of a dispute merely by making formal denials or general allegations of disputed facts. … Appellee counters that an accord and satisfaction arose once appellant accepted the check, as it clearly indicated that it was intended as payment in full under the Policy.

Holt v. State

236 Md. App. 604 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Apr 5, 2018

Like the defendant’s letter in Williams, appellant’s letter “clearly, solely, and unequivocally” stated a desire to discharge counsel.7 435 Md. at 488-89. … While “the privilege of self-defense is not necessarily forfeited by arming one’s self in anticipation of an attack, [] that right is qualified by the proviso that the right only extends to ‘one who [was] not in any sense

Cecil v. Am. Fed. of St., Cty. & Mun. Emp.

Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Mar 28, 2024

Compare CJP § 5-120 (establishing the judicial cause of action), with SP&P § 3-205(b)(3) (2022) (establishing the administrative cause of action). … Cecil’s state claim in his amended federal complaint related back to his original federal complaint for tolling purposes, then it, too, would qualify as having been brought within the limitations period. But, if Mr.

Critical Area Commission v. Moreland, LLC

191 Md. App. 260 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Mar 25, 2010

The Act authorized the establishment of local government resource protection programs “on a cooperative basis between the State and affected local governments, with local governments establishing and implementing their programs … Koslow was not recognized as an attorney or as *274 an expert, the Board allowed him to cross-examine witnesses and to testify regarding the water qualify in Warehouse Creek.

Iglesias v. Pentagon Title & Escrow, LLC

206 Md. App. 624 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Aug 30, 2012

She did not qualify for financing, however, because a credit search revealed she recently had purchased a house in Montgomery County encumbered by two mortgage loans in her name. … Several weeks later, the Bank informed the Jacqueses that they only *639 qualified for a loan in an amount significantly less than the amount to be financed.

Faith v. State

242 Md. App. 212 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Aug 2, 2019

That’s something that’s clearly exposed when they hold their pants away from their body and not pull them down. … Moreover, “the burden of establishing exigent circumstances is on the State, and . . . the facts and circumstances upon which the question of reasonableness depends must be viewed in the light of established fourth amendment

Twigg v. Riverside Apartments, LLC

168 Md. App. 351 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Apr 12, 2006

Thus, Maryland law has never recognized the defense of governmental immunity in contract actions against counties and municipalities. … For example, a contract by a Governor purporting to limit the Governor's constitutional authority and discretion in the future appointment of judges would clearly be unenforceable.

Rosser v. Prem

52 Md. App. 367 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Sep 3, 1982

Similarly in this State, a trust to establish a *374 home for "unfortunate girls” was held to be charitable, Second National, supra, and more recently, Register of Wills v. … In re Will of Pace, 400 N.Y.S.2d 488 (Sur.Ct. 1977) held that a testatrix’s direction to level her property was clearly destructive, produced no benefit to offset the waste of the asset, was purely capricious in that the

Anand v. O'Sullivan

233 Md. App. 677 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Aug 30, 2017

Saxon asserted that the notice did not constitute a “Qualified Written Request” under the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act, and that Saxon was not obligated to respond to the notice. … All of the TILA claims the Anands attempted to raise in the current case clearly “could have been litigated in the” December 30, 2008, suit. Norville, supra, 390 Md. at 107 (emphasis in original).

Brown v. State

124 Md. App. 183 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Dec 4, 1998

reviewing the denial of a motion to suppress, we look only to the record of the suppression hearing, extend deference to the fact finding of the suppression judge, and accept those findings as to disputed issues of fact unless clearly … The Court explained, however, that despite the illegality of the arrest, the defendant could not successfully argue that he was immune from prosecution because his person was the fruit of the arrest.

Alvarez v. Bateson

176 Md. App. 136 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Sep 13, 2007

Thus, appellees reasoned, the automatic stay contained in section 362 of the Bankruptcy Code “clearly applies to both Bateson Construction, [ ] (the debtor in the pending Chapter 7 proceeding) as well as [appellees].” … We express no opinion regarding the merits of whether, in the case sub judice, appellees qualify for an extension of the automatic stay provision under the “unusual circumstances” exception of A.H. Robins Co.

In Re: S.K.

Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jun 5, 2018

Thus, even if the underlying conduct would not qualify as a separate act of sexual abuse, the distribution of the material depicting it can be exploitative and harmful. … Law § 1-101(g)—is clearly a “person,” defined to include “an individual,” Crim. Law § 1-101(h). S.K. is thus a “person” subject to the statute.

McMillan v. State

181 Md. App. 298 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Sep 9, 2008

The defense of duress is not established by proof that the defendant had been threatened with violence at an earlier time. … But, there is at least an "arguable requirement that a felony must be ‘dangerous to human life’ in order to qualify for the common law felony-murder doctrine.” Id. at 109. See Fisher v.

Kleinbart v. State

2 Md. App. 183 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Oct 16, 1967

Clair that there was no “unreasonable” search and seizure are clearly distinguishable, however, from the facts here in the record before *199 us. … S. 1021 , the Court of Appeals citing Carter again stated that “the right of immunity from unreasonable search and seizure is personal and one who disclaims ownership or other possessory interest has no right to protest the

Collins v. National Railroad Passenger Corp.

187 Md. App. 295 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Aug 27, 2009

Examples of evidence of contributory negligence include failing to follow specific safety instructions reasonably calculated to protect the employee from the injury that occurred; failing to report a defect when the evidence establishes … car was being put at the time of the injury to [the Decedent], it was *317 the fact that they had couplers and buffers I do not believe is sufficient under the use for which it was being put at the time of the injury to qualify

Tobias v. State

37 Md. App. 605 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Oct 19, 1977

Thomas, was clearly relevant and material to those charges. … Thus, the Court considered the fact that this witness was testifying under what was equivalent to a promise of immunity as one which, in a reasonable likelihood, could have affected the judgment of the jury.

Giant of Maryland, LLC v. Taylor

188 Md. App. 1 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Sep 30, 2009

We shall only address the first two arguments, as they clearly are meritorious. 1. Adverse employment action. … Clearly, one person cannot retaliate against another for certain conduct of the other if the person does not know about the other’s conduct.

Smith v. State

Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Sep 28, 2022

Finally, the State asserted that the rule established in Oregon v. … This footnote clearly was not a holding of the Court of Appeals, but rather, it was dicta.

Penn. Nat. Mut. Casualty Ins. v. Jeffers

244 Md. App. 471 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jan 31, 2020

to establish an obligation on the insurer’s part. … This agreement was qualified by a provision stating that “[t]his insurance applies to ‘bodily injury’ . . . only if . . . [t]he ‘bodily injury’ occurs during the policy period.”