Case law

State v. Williams

Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Aug 31, 2022

The Rule establishes that a court may correct an illegal sentence “at any time.” Md. Rule 4-345(a). … The terms of a guilty plea “must be made ‘express’ and ‘clearly agreed upon before the guilty plea is accepted.’” Id. (quoting Solorzano v. State, 397 Md. 661, 672 (2007)).

Chaney Enterprises Ltd. Partnership v. Windsor

158 Md. App. 1 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jul 16, 2004

The Commission then “establishes a ‘consideration date,’ which notifies the employer/insurer that the Commission will pass an award based on the evidence in the claim file unless the Commission is notified of the employer … Zayre claimed it was a co-employer, and thus was immune from suit under the predecessor version of the workers’ compensation statute. Id. at 223-24 , 443 A.2d 98 .

Aetna Insurance v. Aaron

112 Md. App. 472 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Dec 3, 1996

In his motion, he contended that the undisputed facts established *478 that Aetna had an obligation to defend and indemnify him under the terms of the Policy and was thus also liable for his attorneys’ fees, costs, and expenses … The Court concluded that the State lacked the requisite property interest in the contaminated groundwater to “qualify as a third party whose property was damaged by the pollutants emanating from the [Bausch & Lomb] site.”

Tricat Industries, Inc. v. Harper

131 Md. App. 89 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Mar 10, 2000

Did the trial court err in refusing to give any instruction whatsoever to the jury as to what constitutes “just cause” for the termination of a contract employee under established principles of Maryland law? C. … And I believe that he would not be qualified for his position as a chief financial officer if he didn’t have a basic understanding of the relative authority of the board of directors over its officers.

Weatherly v. Great Coastal Express Co., Inc.

164 Md. App. 354 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Sep 19, 2005

This case presents the question whether an individual who lived with, but was not married to, the deceased worker qualifies for extended benefits if that individual continues to be wholly dependent after the $45,000.00 cap … To invoke the doctrine of collateral estoppel, “the proponent must establish that: (1) the issue sought to be precluded is identical to one previously litigated; (2) the issue must have been actually determined in the prior

Kona Properties, LLC v. W.D.B. Corp.

224 Md. App. 517 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Aug 28, 2015

Miller, Equity Procedure as Established in the Courts of Maryland, § 554, at 652-53 (1897) (footnotes omitted)). … Thus, Appellees were clearly entitled to petition the court to compel Appellants, through the entry of a judgment against them, to make the payments contemplated by §§ 14-831 and 14-844(d) to the collector.32 Id. at 213

Ross v. State

232 Md. App. 72 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Mar 3, 2017

It clearly meant something. By way of corroborating that otherwise cryptic message, the appellant, had indeed been moving fast. … An out-of-court statement by a conspirator during the life of the conspiracy and in furtherance of the conspiracy, however, has traditionally been recognized as being sufficiently reliable to qualify as an exception to

FutureCare Northpoint v. Peeler

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

Williams v. State

Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jun 30, 2021

The court said that “clearly” there was such a mistake “because both parties acted on the assumption that the 10 Despite her statement that a substance-induced psychosis generally will not support a finding … Instead, the State could have required Williams to “establish, by a preponderance of the evidence, the defense of not criminally responsible.” Md. Code (2001, 2018 Repl.

Dionas v. State

199 Md. App. 483 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jul 1, 2011

Moreover, because the two jury notes clearly conveyed the nature of the contact, there was no need for further inquiry to resolve whether there was prejudice due to the contact. … Should death to an unintended victim or to an innocent bystander ensue, each participant in the illegal encounter has exhibited conduct that qualifies him for a depraved heart.

Petition of Featherfall Restoration

Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jun 28, 2024

Section 27-305 establishes penalties for violations of Subtitle 3 and its associated regulations. … The record clearly establishes that Travelers sent the Insured a letter explaining that their Claim was being denied because the damage to their roof was not covered under the Policy.

Castruccio v. Estate of Castruccio

Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jul 28, 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

Castruccio v. Estate of Castruccio

Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jul 28, 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

Petition of Featherfall Restoration

Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Mar 7, 2024

Section 27-305 establishes penalties for violations of Subtitle 3 and its associated regulations. … The record clearly establishes that Travelers sent the Insured a letter explaining that their Claim was being denied because the damage to their roof was not covered under the Policy.

Petition of Featherfall Restoration

Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Mar 7, 2024

Section 27-305 establishes penalties for violations of Subtitle 3 and its associated regulations. … The record clearly establishes that Travelers sent the Insured a letter explaining that their Claim was being denied because the damage to their roof was not covered under the Policy.

Davis v. State

Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Sep 3, 2025

After the court established that Davis was not under the influence and could understand what was going on in the proceedings, the court continued: THE COURT: Okay. … The Court observed that Nichols’s first and second appeals “clearly raised different issues.” Id. at 596.