Case law

Canterbury Riding Condominium v. Chesapeake Investors, Inc.

66 Md. App. 635 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Mar 10, 1986

This permits the appellate court to determine if there is anything in the record which establishes the existence of any hardship or unfairness which would justify discretionary departure from the usual rule establishing the … The court should clearly articulate the reasons and factors underlying its decision to grant 54(b) certification. ‘...

Hammond v. State

Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jan 30, 2026

State, 426 Md. 211, 229 n.6 (2012) (“[A] qualifying clause ordinarily is confined to the immediately preceding word or phrase[.]”). … With respect to the determination of legislative intent, we conclude that the plain language and overall design of § 792 clearly indicate that it was not intended as punishment, but rather was intended

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.

Kyler v. State

218 Md. App. 196 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jul 31, 2014

Accordingly, we held that “[t]here was clearly sufficient evidence for the jury to find that Peter Allen was, indeed, a ‘drug kingpin.’” Id. at 53. Similarly, in Velez v. State, 106 Md. … He asserts that there was no evidence establishing that he controlled their activities, as required by statute.

Rodriguez v. State

Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jun 1, 2023

The burden is on the defendant to “establish two things: (1) custody; and (2) interrogation.” … However, not every restraint on freedom qualifies as being “in custody” for the purposes of Miranda. Brown v. State, 452 Md. 196, 211 (2017).

Facon v. State

144 Md. App. 1 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Feb 5, 2002

In Rozplochi , the court upheld two robbery convictions arising from a taking at one business establishment. … When a defendant is convicted of more than one qualifying crime of violence as the result of a single incident, only one sentence may be imposed under § 643B(c). Jones v.

Wallace & Gale Asbestos Settlement Trust v. Carter

211 Md. App. 488 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · May 2, 2013

But, you know, I guess, the witness can say what he says if he is qualified to say it. … The issue clearly is defined in my mind as does a use plaintiff who otherwise didn’t appear until the trial and never got moved into the case until it was ready for verdict, are they entitled to have a verdict entered in

Muhammad v. State

177 Md. App. 188 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Nov 5, 2007

At the *256 very outset of her opinion, Judge Raker clearly stated the precise issue before the Court. … Judge Ryan found as a fact that those jurors were qualified to serve. Dingle v. State, 361 Md. 1, 15-19 , 759 A.2d 819 (2000). His findings in that regard were not clearly erroneous.

Prince George's County v. Washington Post Co.

149 Md. App. 289 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jan 29, 2003

Now I’m sure you’ll be back again arguing what qualifies for that, and I don’t mind that because I need to see specifically what it is. … The Police Manual is established pursuant to PGCC, § 18-143, which provides, in pertinent part: “The Chief of Police shall establish written rules and regulations for the administration and discipline of the members of the

Powell v. State

56 Md. App. 351 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Nov 9, 1983

Again, any such memory loss would clearly have been attributable to the appellant. … Contrary to well-established Maryland law, appellant myopically focuses on the “one-eyewitness” instruction.

Para v. 1691 Ltd. Partnership

211 Md. App. 335 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · May 1, 2013

Nine of the "witnesses were qualified as experts in a variety of areas, including, wetlands ecology, land use and planning, and retail market analysis. … The CSAP is clearly relevant to a public need determination. 17 It is well established that “ ‘[Relevant evidence’ means evidence having any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination

Rich v. State

Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Aug 30, 2016

Rich’s counsel rendered ineffective assistance is a mixed question of law and fact, and we will not disturb the circuit court’s factual findings unless they are clearly erroneous. … Rich contends that this plea colloquy is deficient because the court did not establish on the record the elements of the second count, conspiracy to distribute marijuana.

In Re GUARDIANSHIP OF ZEALAND W. and Sophia W.

220 Md. App. 66 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Oct 29, 2014

If the minor has attained his 14th birthday, and if the person otherwise is qualified, the court shall appoint a person designated by the minor, unless the decision is not in the best interests of the … This argument is inconsistent with the established jurisdiction over related family law matters. Maryland law grants the circuit and juvenile courts the jurisdiction to terminate parental rights.

Southern Management Corp. v. Taha

137 Md. App. 697 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Apr 3, 2001

Moreover, an act incident to the performance of the duties entrusted to the employee by the employer qualifies as “authorized conduct.” Tall, 120 Md.App. at 253 , 706 A.2d 659 . … Nevertheless, even if the confusion stemmed from the trial court’s failure to instruct the jury fully with respect to respondeat superior, 7 and the jury was not clearly advised that Southern’s liability was predicated and

Tabbs v. State

43 Md. App. 20 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jul 10, 1979

In the interest of sureness, however, let us first establish the validity of the analogy. In United States v. … It would be a high price indeed for spciety to pay were every accused granted immunity from punishment because of any defect sufficient to constitute reversible error in the proceedings leading to conviction.

Barrett v. State

234 Md. App. 653 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Nov 29, 2017

The general rule is that “searches conducted outside the judicial process, without prior approval by judge or magistrate, are per se unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment – subject only to a few specifically established … The United States Supreme Court has made clear that a search may qualify as a search incident to arrest even if, sequentially, the search occurs prior to the arrest. Rawlings v. Kentucky, 448 U.S. 98, 111 (1980).

Nouri v. Dadgar

245 Md. App. 324 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Apr 7, 2020

IF THESE MAHRS QUALIFY AS VALID AGREEMENTS UNDER “NEUTRAL PRINCIPLES OF LAW,” THEN THEY MAY BE ENFORCED WITHOUT VIOLATING THE FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION. Dr. Nouri and Mr. … “The first of the two Clauses, commonly called the Establishment Clause, commands a separation of church and state.

Bloodsworth v. State

76 Md. App. 23 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jul 8, 1988

Unless it should appear that the trial judge’s findings of fact were wholly unsupported by the record and, thus, clearly erroneous, his findings will not be disturbed on appeal. See also Brittingham v. … In response to Rehill’s claim of privilege, Bloodsworth moved "to compel the State to grant David Rehill full immunity and obviate any privilege he may have.”

Bradford v. Md. State Brd. of Education

Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Nov 12, 2024

Until the court does something in the exercise of that jurisdiction that is otherwise appealable, however, there is clearly nothing final about that provision. Bradford I, 387 Md. at 385-86. … embodying the parties’ settlement of the case; the Bradford Plaintiffs were seeking to litigate non-justiciable political questions; and the requests for damages and attorneys’ fees were barred by the doctrine of sovereign immunity

Smith v. State

233 Md. App. 372 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jul 26, 2017

Haddaway’s character, and immunity agreements stating that no charges would be brought against her for information relating to the Wilford murder. … With respect to the circuit court’s factual findings, we accept these findings unless clearly erroneous. Yonga, 221 Md. App. at 95.