Case law

Sissoko v. State

236 Md. App. 676 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Apr 9, 2018

Indeed, it could not have, as the differential diagnosis method is well- established. … Whether there are legitimate studies showing that infants can suffer serious brain injury causing death from short falls or similar accidents does not matter here, where there clearly was not an accidental cause for Shane

Simmons v. Lennon

139 Md. App. 15 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jun 6, 2001

In Maryland, in order to establish a cause of action for negligence, a plaintiff must prove: a duty owed to the plaintiff or to a class of which the plaintiff is a part; a breach of that duty; a causal relationship between … In this regard, the sales contract contained an unusual provision, viz: “Purchaser agrees to increase the down payment to whatever amount is necessary to qualify for a mortgage loan.” Id.

State v. Andrews

227 Md. App. 350 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Mar 30, 2016

App. 72, 91 (2015) (concluding that the State’s witness was properly qualified as an expert to testify regarding the mapping of appellant’s cell phone data); Stevenson v. State, 222 Md. … Here, as we noted above, the BPD submitted an overreaching pen register\trap & trace application that failed to clearly articulate the intended use, i.e., to track Andrews’s cell phone using an active cell site simulator

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.

Bartram v. State

33 Md. App. 115 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Oct 5, 1976

Fisher was able to establish an absolute sequence of firing. The first shot entered the skull at the right temple. … Additional ballistics evidence established that the trigger mechanism was defective.

Baby v. State

171 Md. App. 329 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Oct 30, 2006

Expert testimony describing PTSD or rape trauma syndrome may be admissible, however, when offered for purposes other than simply to establish that the offense occurred. … Shall have and enjoy all such rights liberties immunities priviledges and free customs within this Province as any naturall born subject of England hath or ought to have or enjoy in the Realm of England by force or vertue

Redemptorists v. Coulthard Services, Inc.

145 Md. App. 116 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jun 28, 2002

“The intention to waive must be clearly established’ and will not be inferred from equivocal acts or language.” Charles J. … Reversing this Court, the Court of Appeals held that the trial court’s waiver finding was clearly erroneous.

Conrad/Dommel, LLC v. West Development Co.

149 Md. App. 239 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jan 29, 2003

West argues in its brief that the deed from TLC granting limited riparian rights to the Yacht Club “qualifies as an intermediate estate for purposes of considering whether a merger has taken place.” (Emphasis by West.) … Indeed, West argues that the intent of the parties not to transfer the riparian rights was clearly evidenced by the language of the Columbia deed of trust when read together with the UDI deed of trust.

In Re Adoption/Guardianship of Chaden M.

189 Md. App. 411 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Dec 1, 2009

The late-filing is clear and admitted, albeit qualified by counsel. There is no question of the late-filing being questioned as sound trial strategy. … Gardner, 221 Md. 280, 284 , 157 A.2d 273 (1960) (“[A]doption shall not be granted over parental objection unless that course clearly is justified”).

First Union National Bank v. Steele Software Systems Corp.

154 Md. App. 97 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Dec 17, 2003

The Facts Proven Were Not Sufficient To Establish Fraud The elements for a fraud action in Maryland were clearly summarized in a leading fraud case, Martens Chevrolet, Inc. v. … In this appeal, we are called upon to decide whether “evidence when viewed in its entirety does not establish, clearly and convincingly, a prima facie case of fraud on the part of’ First Union.

Gurbani v. Johns Hopkins Health Sys. Corp.

237 Md. App. 261 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jun 1, 2018

Sponseller explained that he remembers the incident “clearly because it was so remarkable” in how it “deviated from standard practice and from what [he] would expect and trust in a resident.” Dr. … This count for negligent retention and supervision “clearly sounds in negligence.” Gasper v. Ruffin Hotel Corp. of Maryland, Inc., 183 Md. App. 211, 231 (2008), aff’d, 481 Md. 594 (2011).

Ray v. State

230 Md. App. 157 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Sep 29, 2016

appreciate is that it is not the degree or virulence of the illegality that makes one allegedly flawed sentence cognizable under Rule 4-345(a) while another (perhaps even more flagrantly flawed) is completely immune … State, 388 Md. 385, 395-99, 879 A.2d 1074 (2005), clearly stated that where agreed facts are submitted, "to render judgment, the court simply applies the law to the facts agreed upon." See Bruno v.

Skrabak v. Skrabak

108 Md. App. 633 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Mar 28, 1996

The facts upon which the expert bases his opinion must elevate that opinion “ ‘above the realm of conjecture and speculation, for no matter how highly qualified the expert may be in his field, his opinion has no probative … Skrabak’s Corporation was established ... after cohabitation ceased.

Covington v. State

Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · May 1, 2026

[T]hat being said, I don’t believe the State has at this juncture established a prima facie case of an assault[.] … Appellant contends that the statement constitutes a collateral issue and did not qualify as a statement permitted under the opened door doctrine.

Professional Staff Nurses Ass'n v. Dimensions Health Corp.

110 Md. App. 270 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jun 3, 1996

Under that section, Dimensions could not have chosen' from the entire labor pool of qualified workers—it could have only chosen workers who do not “customarily and repeatedly” offer to be employed in place of strikers. … See Machinists, 427 U.S. at 137 , 137 n. 2, 96 S.Ct. at 2552 , 2552 n. 2, (“Policing of actual or threatened violence to persons or destruction of property has been held most clearly a matter for the States.”). 15 In fact

Allfirst Bank v. Department of Health & Mental Hygiene

140 Md. App. 334 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Sep 7, 2001

Qualified Builders, Inc. v. Equitable Trust Co., 273 Md. 579, 584 , 331 A.2d 293 (1975); Travel Comm., Inc. v. … In the absence of a clear statutory directive, or legislative history that establishes the Legislature’s intent to supersede the parties’ contractual agreement regarding legal fees, we apply the fundamental principle of statutory

Nensala v. State

Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Feb 2, 2026

I remember the facts of the case very clearly from the court and that [the appellant] was identified as the individual that came in with a knife. … They said his car was out there in the parking lot for a little while and that the victim came in and very clearly described what had happened and identified [the appellant].

Griner v. State

168 Md. App. 714 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · May 25, 2006

He’s clearly talking to a nurse. Now I’m assuming that the nurse was in uniform of some kind, but truthfully, I don’t know that. … The purpose of her questioning was “to gather information so we could pass that on to the doctors and collaborate on the plan of care” and establish a good treatment plan.

Bender v. Schwartz

172 Md. App. 648 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Mar 1, 2007

Thus, as in all actions tried without a jury, we shall review questions of law de novo and shall not set aside the circuit court’s findings of fact unless they are “clearly erroneous.” See Md. Rule 8-131(c). … Appellant, however, provided no evidence that Stanley was not a “working employee or officer,” or explain why his position as an executive vice president would not qualify him as an employee or officer under the Delaware

Broadcast Equities, Inc. v. Montgomery County

123 Md. App. 363 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Oct 2, 1998

This argument clearly attacks the ordinance as applied. Because it is not a facial challenge, appellant is required to exhaust its administrative remedies with respect to this contention. … There, the Court considered a challenge to a Baltimore City ordinance that established a minimum wage standard higher than that provided in the State law.