Case law

Daughtry v. Nadel

248 Md. App. 594 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Dec 16, 2020

We turn next to the developments the Daughtrys contend altered that established law. B. … In reaching that conclusion, the Court found it especially notable that while “[t]he Commission’s report clearly establishes that any substantive changes would be explained in the report or in the revisor’s notes,” those

Sugarman v. Liles

234 Md. App. 442 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Nov 1, 2017

Liles’ expert in economics, explained that, to understand the likelihood of an individual he is evaluating competing in the labor market, he must rely on the opinions “offered by someone qualified in the area of vocational … When the EPA, or anyone else, makes a conclusion that epidemiological evidence establishes a causative relationship, they mean it is a risk factor.

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

Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. v. Scarlett Harbor Associates Ltd. Partnership

109 Md. App. 217 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Apr 3, 1996

When the Council sought to amend its complaint to include, more clearly, a claim of warranty based on the plans and specifications, the court denied its request. … See Helinski, 90 Md.App. at 167 , 600 A.2d 882 (“Whether an expert is qualified to render an opinion is a matter to be determined by [the trial] court____”).

State v. Holt

206 Md. App. 539 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Aug 29, 2012

The State recites facts that, when considered under a totality of the circumstances, establish reasonable suspicion: “(1) the active narcotics trade of Daniel Blue, the individual with whom Holt met; (2) the actions taken … The Court explained that “a contrary rule would virtually immunize a defendant from prosecution for all crimes he might commit that have a sufficient causal connection to the police misconduct.” Id. at 1017 .

Board of Liquor License Commissioners v. J.R. Bros.

119 Md. App. 308 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jan 16, 1998

As these provisions illustrate, Article 2B precisely establishes the sanctions available to a liquor board in responding to a licensee's misconduct. … In further support of my view that the instant case qualifies as the equivalent of a consensual restriction, I point out that Mr.

In Re Tamara R.

136 Md. App. 236 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Dec 29, 2000

Clearly, the juvenile court is directed to consider the best *248 interests of both the child adjudicated a CIÑA, as well as the other children in the family. … To be able to establish and nurture such a relationship is, without question, a natural and inalienable right which is bestowed upon one merely by virtue of birth into the same family. Id. at 218.

Rollins v. State

161 Md. App. 34 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jan 28, 2005

It was clearly admissible under Md.Code, Article 22, § 8 which has been construed by Benjamin v. … In the typical murder case, the State introduces the autopsy report to establish corpus ddedi, ie., the body of the crime.

Richmarr Holly Hills, Inc. v. American PCS, L.P.

117 Md. App. 607 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Oct 30, 1997

Thus, this Court cannot find that the Board’s decision is clearly erroneous. … The representative was not qualified or offered on the record as possessing any particular expertise. 10 . Beauty is said, however, to be in the eye of the beholder.

White v. State

Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Apr 28, 2015

As in the prior trial, the State called several Bode Technology DNA analysts who assisted in the process for DNA analysis in E.L.’s case.10 Julie Ferragut, a senior DNA analyst at Bode Technology qualified as an expert … “We perform a de novo constitutional appraisal in light of the particular facts of the case at hand; in so doing, we accept a lower court’s findings of fact unless clearly erroneous.”

City of Frederick v. Shankle

136 Md. App. 339 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jan 31, 2001

Clearly, Dr. Wasserman’s opinion in this case, which is clearly contrary to the express provisions of the Maryland worker’s compensation statute, is based on the erroneous concept of the law and is legally mistaken. … Critzer, 230 Md. 286, 290 , 186 A.2d 586, 588 (1962) (“[N]o matter how highly qualified the expert may be in his field, his opinion *358 has no probative force unless a sufficient basis to support a rational conclusion is

Johnson v. State

245 Md. App. 46 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jan 31, 2020

We will not “set aside the judgment of the trial court on the evidence unless clearly erroneous, and 2. … Put another way, if this drug sale qualifies as grossly negligent, we struggle to imagine a transaction that wouldn’t. Accordingly, we reverse Mr.

Pinner v. Pinner

240 Md. App. 90 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jan 31, 2019

The burden is on the plaintiff “to establish the propriety of [the exercise] of personal jurisdiction.” CSR v. Taylor, 411 Md. 457, 467 n.2 (2009). … Specific jurisdiction may be established if “the defendant’s contacts with the forum state form the basis for the suit[.]” Beyond Systems, 388 Md. at 26.

Wise v. State

132 Md. App. 127 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · May 3, 2000

Detective Moore testified that he stopped for about five seconds at the stop sign at the corner of Riggs Avenue and North Calhoun Street, then drove through the intersection and pulled up to the alley to see more clearly … At most, he sought merely to establish a collateral fact that the State’s Attorney’s Office is busy combating the city’s drug problems.

Olson v. State

208 Md. App. 309 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Nov 28, 2012

I can clearly see him inside the apartment. Ah, he was holding a laser level. … Specifically, a “compelling urgency” was clearly shown.

Howard v. State

232 Md. App. 125 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Mar 28, 2017

Weitz’s analysis was certified to have been, qualifies for automatic admissibility under CJP section 10-915. Phillips v. State, Md. , No. 7, September Term, 2016 (filed January 20, 2017). … The argument advanced on rebuttal clearly distinguishes the acts supporting separate convictions for assault and false imprisonment. At any rate, any ambiguity was resolved by the court’s instructions.

Macias v. Summit Management

243 Md. App. 294 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Nov 21, 2019

According to Appellees, when Damien climbed the community sign he could not meet the criteria to qualify as an invitee under either the “mutual benefit” theory—since he did not intend to benefit Appellees when he chose … This case is clearly distinguishable from Pellicot, 181 Md. at 136, in which a child wandered behind a grocery store counter; and from Levine, 218 Md. at 76, in which a child deliberately left a restricted area unlocked

Exxon Corp. v. Yarema

69 Md. App. 124 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Nov 6, 1986

In the first suit the plaintiff established liability and recovered compensatory damages. … The issue whether the releases qualified as joint tortfeasors releases for the purposes of the Act was not disputed and the releases themselves were never admitted as part of the record in the trial court.

Wilkins v. State

Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jan 26, 2022

Clearly, she could properly take that into account in imposing sentence. Nor was Wilkins a first-time offender, as the State’s presentation made clear. … Clearly, more is required of a judge who is replaced during trial than one who is replaced after a verdict has been rendered.

Brockington v. Grimstead

176 Md. App. 327 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Sep 7, 2007

In the note, the juror stated that he was scheduled to receive immunization shots the next day, November 15, for an upcoming trip to Indonesia. … Such a standard is practical and workable, the Court reasoned, because “compliance with it can be established through objective and extrinsic evidence” rather than by requiring inquiry into what went on behind closed doors