Case law

Ray v. State

206 Md. App. 309 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jul 2, 2012

Clearly, the violation here of [Maryland] Rule 4-246 was error, though not structural. Thus, we must determine whether [the defendant] was prejudiced by the tardy waiver. … This exchange establishes only that Sergeant White did not cite Norris for the illegal headlamps.

Soares v. State

248 Md. App. 395 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Nov 18, 2020

Would such a mechanical recitation and notation suffice, for instance, as the qualifier for the interrogation of a ten- year-old? … Throughout the interrogation, it was clearly Detective Street’s strategy to keep the appellant talking.

Logan v. State

164 Md. App. 1 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Sep 7, 2005

established federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court. … One need do no more than peruse the reported appellate opinions touching upon the issue of a criminal defendant’s “sanity” to see the frequency with which well-qualified and presumably competent practitioners express different

Lone v. Montgomery County

85 Md. App. 477 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jan 21, 1991

To qualify for the ten-year grace period, the owners of eligible homes were required to register their homes with the Montgomery County Department of Environmental Protection to ensure that certain health and safety code … This legislative purpose clearly envisions the ten-year phase-out plan. There is no inconsistency between the legislative purpose and the operative portions of the Ordinance.

Hartford Underwriters Insurance v. Phoebus

187 Md. App. 668 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Aug 31, 2009

. *678 The Court of Appeals has explained the well-established rules of contract interpretation as follows: “Maryland adheres to the principle of the objective interpretation of contracts.” Cochran v. … “Project” is clearly defined in the Contract to mean the Restaurant, with no time limitation. “[Property insurance applicable to the Project” plainly would have meant such insurance on the Restaurant after completion.

Castruccio v. Estate of Castruccio

239 Md. App. 345 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Nov 14, 2018

The General Rules of Will Construction The general principles for construing a will are well established. … Mercantile-Safe Deposit and Trust Co., 257 Md. 482, 484-85 (1970), the testator and a business partner had established two prosperous companies.

State v. Cooksey

128 Md. App. 331 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Sep 29, 1999

The State insists, therefore, that a good faith effort was made to establish both a reasonable time frame and an estimate as to the number of incidents involved. … In order to uphold a conviction in this sort of case, *355 where the prosecution does not elect to rely upon a specific instance, the trial judge must ensure that the record clearly shows that the jurors understood their

Molina v. State

244 Md. App. 67 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Dec 23, 2019

Did the trial court err by admitting impermissible opinion evidence by a witness who was not qualified as an expert under Md. Rule 5-702? II. … Goldberg to offer an opinion on the duty of a fiduciary without having been qualified as an expert under Maryland Rule 5-702. But Ms.

Terrell v. State

3 Md. App. 340 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Mar 12, 1968

Cahill was qualified as an expert in the training of dogs for use by law enforcement agencies. … While that case indicated quite clearly that this would be the better practice, it did not make it mandatory, particularly where it was later determined that the evidence should be admitted. In Smith v.

Prince v. State

Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Oct 26, 2022

In this case, the State established that Mr. Kucuk was one of the “caretaker[s]” of the surveillance footage. Mr. … Prince contends that because he produced evidence that his conduct qualified as imperfect self-defense, the State failed to meet its burden to prove that Mr.

TSU v. Montgomery County

188 Md. App. 351 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Oct 5, 2009

It does not clearly spell out, however, the respective risks of non-production. … The notice requirement of subsection (b) would clearly apply to the first category of failure, to wit, the failure timely and properly to file a claim.

Steamfitters Local Union No. 602 v. Erie Ins. Exch.

241 Md. App. 94 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · May 30, 2019

Maryland Rule 8-501 clearly requires the parties to cooperate in the preparation of the record extract and sets forth the procedure to be used when the parties cannot agree on what should be included. … Getty, 96 Md. 683, at page 690, 54 A. 660, at page 662, 94 Am.St.Rep. 603: ‘But it is equally true that no wrongdoer ought to be allowed to apportion or qualify his own wrong; and that, as a loss has

Johnson v. State

228 Md. App. 27 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · May 31, 2016

Although defense counsel did not utter the words “rule of lenity,” he clearly preserved the issue of merger of the convictions for violation of the protective order, and the trial court clearly decided the issue when it … Same logic, if you find he sent all 18, then clearly he’s guilty of the eight.

Bartholomee v. Casey

103 Md. App. 34 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Dec 28, 1994

A trial court clearly has the power to exclude evidence willfully withheld by one party in violation of properly filed discovery requests. Md.Rule 2-433(a); Hon. Joseph F. … It may be called that of dearly established double fault and alternative liability.

Richman v. FWB Bank

122 Md. App. 110 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jun 25, 1998

To defeat a motion for summary judgment, the non-moving party must establish that a genuine dispute exists as to a material fact. Moura v. … But the ordinance also provided for a ten year “grace period” for qualified owners, which permitted the continuation of the prohibited uses during that period.

Newsom v. Brock & Scott, PLLC

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.”

State Roads Commission of State Highway Administration v. Brannon

58 Md. App. 357 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Apr 9, 1984

This does not answer the question and is clearly contrary to cases in this and other jurisdictions which have recognized that, where there has been a partial taking of property of the kind present here, the noise element … the Supreme Court’s Campbell decision, on which the Maryland Court’s Johnson decision relied, have held that in certain circumstances the property owner can recover consequential damages from the entire project if he can establish

Smith v. State

145 Md. App. 400 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Aug 27, 2002

The court, applying the clearly erroneous standard contained in the Maryland Rules of Criminal Procedure, affirmed the conviction. … Access plays a key role in establishing possession, but it does not necessarily play a role in establishing knowledge, a component of the crime of possession.

CX Reinsurance Co. v. Johnson

Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Sep 7, 2021

at 25-35. “120 West Fayette therefore [was] left only with principles of contract law to establish its entitlement to press a claim for declaratory relief.” Id. at 35. … Although the emphasized portion of the Court’s opinion is clearly dicta, we have recently endorsed this principle. See Dolan v. Kemper Indep. Ins. Co., 237 Md.

Marr v. State

134 Md. App. 152 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Sep 11, 2000

As is now well established, “[t]he ... … In Gunther , the right to arm oneself was qualified by the proviso that such person should be “one who is not in any sense seeking an encounter.” Gunther v.