Case law

In the Matter of Morgan Stanley & Co.

Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jun 4, 2024

Thursday we were in there [the] longest and I clearly was reacting [to] like an allergy, coughing and even feeling my [throat] constricting a bit. … The Court stated: “In order to obtain workers’ compensation benefits based upon an occupational disease, the claimant must ‘establish a “recognizable link” between his condition and a distinctive feature of his occupation

Soleimanzadeh v. Montgomery County

208 Md. App. 107 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Nov 26, 2012

Hildebrant, nor filed an affidavit under Maryland Rule 2-501 (d), for all the reasons I’ve said, the motion for summary judgment is granted and the value is established. … Id. at 5. *123 Although Subtitle U did not contain a separate rule for a trial by jury, the rules under that subtitle clearly presumed the existence of a jury trial.

Sissoko v. State

Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jan 31, 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

In the Matter of Morgan Stanley & Co.

Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · May 30, 2024

Thursday we were in there [the] longest and I clearly was reacting [to] like an allergy, coughing and even feeling my [throat] constricting a bit. … The Court stated: “In order to obtain workers’ compensation benefits based upon an occupational disease, the claimant must ‘establish a “recognizable link” between his condition and a distinctive feature of his occupation

Taylor v. State

236 Md. App. 397 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Apr 2, 2018

able to twist her arm free, which, in the process, caused the knife to make contact with the intruder, without 2 inflicting apparent injury.3 The victim was able to see clearly … The judge qualified to the jury that their decision must be the considered judgment of each of them. Moreover, he did not highlight the decisional split amongst the jurors.

Muldrow v. State

Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Dec 6, 2023

The State objected and the court ruled that the statement was inadmissible as hearsay with no qualifying exception. … Muldrow’s case clearly involved evidence that implicated homosexuality and could arouse prejudicial feelings in jurors inclined to harbor prejudice against homosexuality.

Beyer v. Morgan State University

139 Md. App. 609 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Aug 29, 2001

(In this case, there were no qualifying beneficiaries, so a wrongful death action could not lie.) … Clearly, the use of Estate funds to pay Keating’s legal fee in the survival action could have benefitted the appellant.

Hayfields, Inc. v. Valleys Planning Council, Inc.

122 Md. App. 616 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Aug 27, 1998

We hold that absent a stricter standard clearly expressed in the County’s zoning regulations, or until the relevant case law is modified by the Court of Appeals, the current expression of the Schultz test applies. *648 We … "Building line” is “[t]he line established by law beyond which a building shall not extend.” BCZR § 101. 13 .

Smith v. State

72 Md. App. 450 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Oct 6, 1987

Payton expressly limited itself to cases involving "routine arrests in which there was ample time to obtain a warrant," 445 U.S. at 583 , 100 S.Ct. at 1378 , a statement that clearly implies the possibility of different rules … Patently, that testimony established neither exigent circumstances justifying a warrantless arrest, nor the absence of an opportunity for the police to have obtained a warrant.

Alexis v. State

209 Md. App. 630 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Feb 27, 2013

In Goldsberry, id. at 118, 18 A.3d 836 the Court of Appeals explained that the right to counsel of choice is qualified, stating: It is subject to the trial court’s “independent interest in ensuring that criminal trials are … We explained: [t]he Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution and the common law of Maryland guard against “multiple punishments for the same conduct, unless the Legislature clearly intended

Castruccio v. Estate of Castruccio

230 Md. App. 118 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Sep 29, 2016

Wooley to “creat[e] an engine of destruction” for a “clearly unified document” that fully meets the explicit requirements of the Estates and Trusts Article, but lacks a staple.5 5 In reaching its decision … fragment, the language on page 6 of 6 (“I do hereby attest that the testator to be of sound mind [sic], fully able to understand this instrument, and the testator voluntarily and freely did sign same”) arguably fails to qualify

Hayes & Winston v. State

247 Md. App. 252 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Aug 25, 2020

The defense of duress is not established by proof that the defendant had been threatened with violence at an earlier time. … “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.” Glover v.

Howard v. State

Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jan 31, 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.

Granados v. Nadel

220 Md. App. 482 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Dec 16, 2014

A loss mitigation analysis is an evaluation of the facts and circumstances of a loan secured by owner-occupied residential property to determine whether a mortgagor or grantor qualifies for a loan modification, and, if … Especially here, where the dismissal of the first foreclosure action coincided with legislative changes providing new protections to borrowers, the NOI issued in 2010 was clearly no longer sufficient.

Romeka v. RadAmerica II

Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Apr 27, 2022

So, for example, we refer to her complaint of May 17 as a protected disclosure, even though whether it qualified as such under the HCWWPA is disputed. … Clearly, this answer was not a statement by Mr. Osik that he was not contemplating discipline against Ms. Romeka on May 18.

Dynamic Corp. v. Shan Enterprises, LLC

175 Md. App. 211 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jun 29, 2007

Dynamic explained that, because Shan’s lawyer had not clearly identified which other documents he wanted to have copied, no other documents had been copied. Shan filed a reply. … Lindsey, 65 Md.App. 402, 407 , 500 A.2d 1061 (1985) (stating that “[ t] he word ‘or’ is a disjunctive conjunction which serves to establish a relationship of contrast or opposition.”). See also Doe v.

In re: K.L.

Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Sep 1, 2021

The Grimm court further spelled out that, “[f]or many of us, gender identity is established between the ages of three and four years old. … Heilig was decided almost 18 years ago, and at the time the Court of Appeals observed, presciently, “This is, clearly, an evolving area.” 372 Md. at 723.

Thornton v. State

162 Md. App. 719 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jun 15, 2005

To establish a violation of C.L. § 4-101(c)(2), the State was required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the weapon appellant used did not fall within the statute's penknife exception. Anderson v. … This qualifies what was previously said and supports the later Court of Appeals' language in Burch and Mitchell. In State v.

In re: I.Q.

Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jan 3, 2025

The CINA court reviewed that opinion but found that it did not establish the law of the case governing I.’s CINA matter. … B. upon the birth of the child, the child tested positive for a drug as evidenced by a positive toxicology test; and 2. the mother refused the level of drug treatment recommended by a qualified

Heard v. Cty. Cncl. of Prince George's

Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Dec 29, 2022

As explained by the Court in Ray: Although there is no bright-line rule for who qualifies as “almost” prima facie aggrieved, we have found no cases, in which a person living over 2000 feet away … plan recommendations mandatory.”); Greater Baden- Aquasco Citizens Ass’n, 412 Md. at 98 (noting that Master Plans are generally viewed “as non-binding advisory recommendations, unless a governing statute or ordinance clearly