Case law

Johns Hopkins Hospital v. Correia

174 Md. App. 359 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Apr 30, 2007

To be relevant, evidence must tend to establish or refute a fact at issue in the case. … When plaintiffs’ counsel tried to qualify Stump as an expert, the witness gave a series of answers making it appear that, even though he signed the October 6 report, he was not an elevator mechanic and the opinions he set

Sard v. Hardy

34 Md. App. 217 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Dec 21, 1976

The court had asked the witness if he felt qualified to give an expert opinion, and the witness had said, "No, sir. Absolutely not." … I would delineate the scope of the doctor's duty to disclose differently from the majority by clearly articulating that additional factors are included.

Castruccio v. Castruccio

Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Aug 31, 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.

Warren v. State

205 Md. App. 93 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · May 2, 2012

We defer to the motions court’s factual findings and uphold them unless they are shown to be clearly erroneous. … State, 183 Md.App. 122, 151-52 , 960 A.2d 649 (2008), aff’d, 414 Md. 372 , 995 A.2d 694 (2010) (“In that the appellant, strangely, does not even ask us to *126 overlook non-preservation, this contention may qualify as an

Montgomery County v. Waters Landing Ltd. Partnership

99 Md. App. 1 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · May 17, 1994

This definition does not clearly designate the tax as either a property tax or an excise tax. … First, impact tax districts are established -within the county.

Cnty. Council of Prince George's Cnty. v. Robin Dale Land LLC

Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Aug 6, 2024

The Supreme Court of Maryland has identified the essential attributes of comprehensive rezoning legislation as follows: The requirements which must be met for an act of zoning to qualify as proper comprehensive … Archers Glen Partners, Inc., 405 Md. 43, 56 (2008) (explaining that the law of the case doctrine does not apply when the prior appellate decision “was clearly erroneous” and affording it preclusive effect “would work a

Cnty. Council of Prince George's Cnty. v. Robin Dale Land LLC

Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Aug 6, 2024

The Supreme Court of Maryland has identified the essential attributes of comprehensive rezoning legislation as follows: The requirements which must be met for an act of zoning to qualify as proper comprehensive … Archers Glen Partners, Inc., 405 Md. 43, 56 (2008) (explaining that the law of the case doctrine does not apply when the prior appellate decision “was clearly erroneous” and affording it preclusive effect “would work a

CSX Transportation, Inc. v. Pitts

203 Md. App. 343 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Feb 8, 2012

In its brief, appellant argues that neither Jenkins nor Howe was qualified as an expert. A review of the record reflects that appellant did not argue the matter before the circuit court. … This case is clearly distinguishable—appellee testified that he has been unable to resume his past recreational activities.

In the Matter of HRVC Lt'd P'ship

Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jul 1, 2025

Evidence as to how the size, bulk, and location of the proposed apartment building might affect individuals who are currently using the non- residential parts of the village center was clearly relevant to the issues before … Empty units in a luxury building can result in acceptance of less qualified tenants with the associated problems which negatively [sic] communities.

Parker v. State

193 Md. App. 469 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jul 2, 2010

Anderson, there’s no question that you’re an intelligent man a well spoken man but you clearly have no insight into your behavior. You have no remorse. You’ve no desire to change. … Supreme Court has cautioned against permitting those convicted of a crime from using the Double Jeopardy Clause to avoid sentencing or, in other words, turning sentencing into “a game in which a wrong move by the judge means immunity

Hoffman v. Stamper

155 Md. App. 247 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Feb 27, 2004

She told Beeman that a qualified buyer could obtain an FHA loan for 100% of the purchase price of the property and that the seller could contribute up to 6% to the purchase price. … She tacitly gave credence to that method of establishing a sales price.

Hricko v. State

134 Md. App. 218 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Sep 27, 2000

The statement “I really want to tell you the truth” clearly implied that she had not earlier told Trooper Elzey the truth. … The standard of appellate review of such evidentiary rulings have been clearly stated by Sippio v.

Turenne v. State

Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jul 18, 2023

Rather, a picture that does not satisfy the statute by its terms will not be the subject of a statutory violation even if the defendant believes the picture qualifies as pornography. … Third, Turenne fails to establish that the failure to give more detailed instructions affected the jury’s verdict, and finally, she fails to establish that an exercise of the trial court’s discretion in giving more detailed

Turenne v. State

Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jun 28, 2023

Rather, a picture that does not satisfy the statute by its terms will not be the subject of a statutory violation even if the defendant believes the picture qualifies as pornography. … Third, Turenne fails to establish that the failure to give more detailed instructions affected the jury’s verdict, and finally, she fails to establish that an exercise of the trial court’s discretion in giving more detailed

Facello v. Department of Economic & Employment Development

104 Md. App. 575 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Apr 27, 1995

Upon retirement, they sought to qualify for unemployment benefits. … Congress clearly wanted to bar unemployment benefits if the recipient was also receiving a stream of income from a pension.

FutureCare NorthPoint, LLC v. Peeler

229 Md. App. 108 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jul 28, 2016

Gross, 319 Md. 138 (1990) (parental immunity); and State ex rel. Bond v. Consol. Gas, Elec. … In sum, Melitch stands for the proposition that, under some circumstances, the pre-death release of a personal injury claim effectively prevents statutory beneficiaries from establishing an element of a wrongful death claim

FURDA v. State

193 Md. App. 371 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jul 2, 2010

Furda was not represented by counsel, and he did not have the adversarial proceeding that is clearly contemplated by the Federal statute.... Thus, Mr. … H.G. § 10-623(b). *412 Once a petition for emergency evaluation has been approved by a court or signed and submitted by a peace officer or a qualified health professional, the statute mandates that a peace officer take an

Newell v. Johns Hopkins University

215 Md. App. 217 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Nov 21, 2013

If a contract’s language is unambiguous, it is simple enough to “give effect to that language ‘unless prevented from doing so by public policy or some established principle of law.’ ” SDC 214, LLC, 395 Md. at 434, 910 A.2d … We cannot see why Hopkins leasing the property to others to accomplish one or more of the listed purposes does not qualify as a use by Hopkins, and they read Keseling v.

Norwood v. State

222 Md. App. 620 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Apr 29, 2015

State, 364 Md. 554, 569 (2001) (“We extend great deference to the fact finding of the suppression court and accept the facts as found by that court unless clearly erroneous.”). … Thus, before a defendant can claim the benefit of Miranda warnings, the defendant must establish two things: (1) custody; and (2) interrogation. Smith v. State, 186 Md.

Wooten-Bey v. State

76 Md. App. 603 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Oct 3, 1988

By our holding today, we impose no requirement that a criminal defendant divulge the contents of privileged consultations with his attorney in order to establish prejudice. … Appellant’s next contention is that the trial judge erred in not clearly instructing the jury that a not guilty verdict was possible on the felony murder charge. We find this assertion is incorrect.