Case law

Howell v. State

237 Md. App. 540 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jun 27, 2018

in court or before grand juries and other governmental agencies is firmly established in Anglo-American jurisprudence. … The defense of duress is not established by proof that the defendant had been threatened with violence at an earlier time.

City Homes, Inc. v. Hazelwood

210 Md. App. 615 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Mar 22, 2013

Thus, at trial, [appellee] relied on other evidence, including Arc Environmental’s testing results, to establish the presence of lead-based and flaking paint at the property. … On June 30, 2011, Mankowitz filed a reply memorandum in support of his motion for summary judgment, again arguing that he was entitled to statutory immunity.

J.C. Snavely & Sons, Inc. v. Wheeler

74 Md. App. 428 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Mar 4, 1988

The fact that S.A.S. advertised in Washingtonian Magazine establishes nothing more than mere solicitation. … The evidence produced at the show cause hearing established that appellant was a foreign corporation, based in Pennsylvania, and was neither qualified nor registered to do business in the State of Maryland.

Brooks v. Jenkins

Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Dec 16, 2014

Vol.), § 12- 104(b) of the State Government Article (“SG”); see also CJ § 5-522(a) (establishing between the two sections the State’s immunity from suit for a state employee who has acted within the scope of employment … No cases we have found, however, offer any deeper insight on what range of motives might qualify as being “like” fraud or malice.

Bugg v. Maryland Transportation Authority

31 Md. App. 622 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jun 7, 1976

That the Buggs, for whatever reason, did not then establish, as they later did, that the 1958 deed was incorrect does not deny them due process; they were merely denied the result they desired. … Reformation of Instruments § 93a (1952). *632 We hold that the Commission had an absolute right to rely upon the public records which, after the Buggs-McKeever suit in 1962, clearly showed that the Buggs were not a party

Montgomery Mutual Insurance v. Chesson

170 Md. App. 551 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Sep 20, 2006

And he said ... that in Maryland, none of the cases had ever gone to trial, they’d always been settled, but he was qualified — asked the question, “have you ever been qualified in any courts, and in any other states, and … Shoemaker]: What I have done is go to medical literature and identify large numbers of peer reviewed articles that deal with abnormalities in innate immune responses, particular immune response genes, particular antigen presentation

Mullaney v. State

5 Md. App. 248 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Oct 9, 1968

To establish the legality of the arrest the State called the arresting officer as its sole witness. … In Draper and McCray, the informer was himself the source of the information that a crime was being committed by the person to be arrested, and the informer’s reliability was clearly established by the evidence.

Gambrill v. Bd. of Education, Dorchester Cnty.

Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Sep 7, 2021

COVERDELL ACT—FEDERAL PREMPETION Where the federal Coverdell Act applies, it provides teachers with immunity from suit, and this immunity “preempt[s] the laws of any State to the extent that such laws are inconsistent with … Here, however, because the Board first brought the issue to our attention, it cannot complain of surprise or a lack of opportunity to respond (although clearly in the reverse of the ordinary order of argument).

Brown v. Mayor & City Council

167 Md. App. 306 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Feb 24, 2006

Price’s appointed counsel answered the appellant’s complaint, raising various defenses, including qualified immunity. … He did not, and instead chose to plead guilty upon a statement of facts clearly establishing that the murder was premeditated, deliberate, and with malice.

Walther v. Allstate Insurance

83 Md. App. 405 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jun 21, 1990

The scope of the opinion, and by necessary implication, its limitations were established very early on. The Court was careful to point out, in the first footnote, what was at issue and, indeed, what was not. … Once again, the issue presented on this appeal was not there clearly presented.

State v. Philip Morris, Inc.

225 Md. App. 214 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Oct 2, 2015

Therefore, this Court finds that Maryland has failed to meet the requisite burden to establish that 17  the Panel, in issuing the Partial Settlement Award, engaged … As 37 “factual findings by an arbitrator are virtually immune from challenge,” Mandl, 159 Md.

Hansen v. Kaplan

47 Md. App. 32 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Oct 20, 1980

A review of the critical facts established at trial is necessary for a proper analysis of the argument presented. … In holding that he was, the Court said: 'That there can be more than one proximate cause of an accident is clearly established.

Roll v. State

15 Md. App. 31 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Mar 27, 1972

THE RESPONDENT: Not clearly. Would you please repeat that? … The basic nature of this sentence, like that of the one it replaced, clearly was punitive.

Maryland Port Administration v. C. J. Langenfelder & Son, Inc.

50 Md. App. 525 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jan 11, 1982

The "predecision” interest thus established amounted, in the aggregate for all three claims, to $6,296. … Clearly, the authority noted above to enter into contracts, to sue and be sued, and to do anything necessary or convenient to carry out its powers would imply the power to litigate contract disputes.

Edwards v. Mayor of Baltimore

176 Md. App. 446 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Sep 28, 2007

In addition, the LGTCA prohibits local governments from asserting the defense of governmental immunity to avoid this responsibility and liability, and it establishes monetary caps per individual claim and occurrence on the … Nevertheless, *470 appellant does not raise a question in this appeal that the circuit court was clearly erroneous in its finding. .

State v. Jones

197 Md. App. 638 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Mar 1, 2011

Jones, that the sheriff was entitled to immunity, and the plaintiff failed to establish the elements of her claim. … Jones argued that there was no qualified immunity in this case because there was no claim against an individual; the case involved “a direct claim against the [S]tate for negligence.”

Berry v. Department of Human Resources

88 Md. App. 461 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Sep 10, 1991

Acting then on the motion for reconsideration, the court, on grounds of sovereign immunity, dismissed Mr. Berry’s and Ms. … Section 16, for example, allows the Secretary to establish new classes of positions and to combine, alter, or abolish existing classes.

Raithel v. State

40 Md. App. 107 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jul 14, 1978

Carmencita Mola, was qualified to express an opinion. Alternatively, appellant argues the report was inadmissible because Dr. … In arguing that the State must affirmatively establish the qualification of the declarant before the record can be admitted appellant overlooks Marlow .

Adkins v. State

72 Md. App. 493 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Oct 7, 1987

Troxell’s statements, parts of which clearly implicated both him and appellant in the robbery and killing, *498 were admitted as declarations against Troxell’s penal interest. … Substantively, he attacks the admission of the tape and transcript as a violation of his Sixth Amendment right of confrontation and on the ground that Troxell’s statements do not qualify as declarations against penal interest

Imbraguglio v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co.

108 Md. App. 151 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Feb 6, 1996

As interpreted by the Court of Appeals, in order to establish statutory employer status under § 9-508, a party must show: (1) a principal contractor (2) who has contracted to perform work ' (3) which is a part of his trade … The statute, therefore, clearly requires two contracts, one between the principal contractor and a third party whereby it is agreed that the principal contractor will execute certain work for the third party, and another