Case law

Injured Workers' Insurance Fund v. Orient Express Delivery Service, Inc.

190 Md. App. 438 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Feb 3, 2010

Discussion The standard of review applied in reviewing a grant of a motion for summary judgment is well-established in Maryland. … The standard applied by the Court is not whether the trial court was clearly erroneous but whether the trial court was legally correct. Id. (citations omitted). A.

M. B. Segall & Sons, Inc. v. Mayor of Baltimore

41 Md. App. 503 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Feb 9, 1979

The Relocation Act clearly contemplates otherwise. … Fund, 277 Md. 602 , 605, 356 A. 2d 560 (1976), Chief Judge Murphy reiterated the well-established rule that ...

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.

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.

Friedman & Fuller, P.C. v. Funkhouser

107 Md. App. 91 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Nov 6, 1995

Indeed, in the absence of such a qualified writing, courts often look to equity as a basis for relief. a. … [T]he part performance must be clearly evidential of the existence of a contract—it must be such as would not ordinarily have taken place in the absence of a contract and therefore is not reasonably explicable on some other

Estate of Castruccio v. Castruccio

247 Md. App. 1 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jul 29, 2020

Rule 19-301.5, a court may not confine the limits of a reasonable hourly rate to fees “customarily charged in the locality” in cases where qualified local counsel was not readily available. … Barclay, the alleged statement, which is not clearly disclosed in the record, would prove Mrs. Castruccio’s bad faith. Ms.

Gooch v. Maryland Mechanical Systems, Inc.

81 Md. App. 376 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jan 4, 1990

In discussing the definitions accorded the terms defamation per se and defamation per quod, the Fourth Circuit qualified its definitions in a footnote: even though [per se and per quod] may be what our late brother, Judge … In this respect, the libel per se /libel per quod distinction that has clearly evolved in Maryland at common law, see M & S Furniture v. Edward J. DeBartolo Corp., 249 Md. 540 , 241 A.2d 126 (1968); Heath v.

Newsom v. Brock & Scott, PLLC

253 Md. App. 181 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Nov 24, 2021

Newsom failed to establish that the appellees “acted with knowledge as to the invalidity of the debt.” They also argued that Mrs. … Md. 1999), that the knowledge requirement “does not immunize debt collectors from liability for mistakes of law.”

Burton v. Mumford, Warden

219 Md. App. 673 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Oct 8, 2014

Bennett’s death, and therefore, this Court cannot conclude he is charged with a crime until Delaware establishes jurisdiction. … Clearly, we should not consider any claims that require this Court to determine the motivations and actions of Delaware prosecutors in bringing charges against Burton.

EBC Properties v. Urge Food Corp.

Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Mar 8, 2023

As a result, the circuit court’s ruling was not clearly erroneous. Spaw, LLC, supra, 452 Md. at 339. … Section 14(A) of the Lease clearly required Urge, as Tenant, to surrender the Premises “in good order, condition and repair.”

EBC Properties v. Urge Food Corp.

Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Feb 28, 2023

As a result, the circuit court’s ruling was not clearly erroneous. Spaw, LLC, supra, 452 Md. at 339. … Section 14(A) of the Lease clearly required Urge, as Tenant, to surrender the Premises “in good order, condition and repair.”

Y.Y. v. State

205 Md. App. 724 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jun 27, 2012

In all three, he proceeded upon the clearly stated expectation that he would prevail in this appeal. 3 The appellant’s “Motion for Appropriate Relief’ reads as follows: COMES NOW the appellant, by and through counsel, and … If the nature of Stoterau’s offense alone could qualify him for the use of a pseudonym, there would be no principled basis for denying pseudonymity to any defendant convicted of a similar sex offense.

State v. Robb

Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Apr 3, 2026

Robb’s right to be tried by an impartial jury “unquestionably qualifies as structural error”; and that Mr. … It is settled that ordinarily for a waiver of one’s rights under the confrontation clause “to be effective, it must be clearly established that there was ‘an intentional relinquishment or abandonment of

Crowder v. Master Financial, Inc.

176 Md. App. 631 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Sep 12, 2007

To qualify as a final judgment, an order “must either decide and conclude the rights of the parties involved or deny a party the means to prosecute or defend rights and interests in the subject matter of the proceeding.” … That is clearly not the law of Maryland. The focus of the Maryland discovery rule is facts, not legal theories.

Brass Metal Products, Inc. v. E-J Enterprises Inc.

189 Md. App. 310 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Nov 30, 2009

The First Amended Complaint, the operative Complaint in this case, clearly does not allege a cause of action under [MUTSA] or common law trade secrets law.... … Brass Metal further argues that “[t]he evidence clearly showed that a fiduciary and confidential relationship existed between the parties.”

Stokeling v. State

189 Md. App. 653 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Dec 30, 2009

When conflicting evidence was presented, we must accept the facts as found by the hearing judge unless those findings are shown to be clearly erroneous. Longshore, 399 Md. at 498 , 924 A.2d 1129 ; see also Haley v. … It is well established that an alert to a vehicle by a qualified drug-sniffing dog furnishes probable cause to perform a warrantless search of the vehicle. See State v.

Blood v. Stoneridge at Fountain Green

Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Aug 29, 2019

We look first to the plain language of the statute and decide what parts, if any, are “ambiguous or not clearly consistent with the statute’s apparent purpose.” Hailes v. State, 442 Md. 488, 495 (2015). … To the contrary, 14 the facts to which the Bloods stipulated in the circuit court establish that the Association sought here to enforce a limitation consistently.

Smith v. State

196 Md. App. 494 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Dec 28, 2010

Di Maio, clearly testified that McQueen died “as the result of a self-inflicted gunshot wound; that this case is a suicide.” Even Dr. … Vosburgh was biased in favor of one party or other, appellant’s attempts to establish that Dr.

Conboy v. State

155 Md. App. 353 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Mar 2, 2004

Clearly, it was not. While appellant sat on the ground as instructed, the trooper walked over to the van and placed the key in the ignition. … The temporal proximity between the search and the arrest, however, does not qualify the search as an "incident" of the arrest. That is a separate consideration.

United States Life Insurance v. Wilson

198 Md. App. 452 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Apr 28, 2011

Such agencies as the United Parcel Service, Federal Express, or even private messenger services in urban areas would qualify, and as soon as the communication leaves the offeree’s possession and is placed with an authorized … known agent acting within the scope of his authority for a disclosed principal, the contract is that of the principal alone, unless credit has been given expressly and exclusively to the agent, and it appears that it was clearly