Case law

Higginbotham v. Public Service Commission

171 Md. App. 254 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Oct 26, 2006

[The Chairman] undertook to terminate plaintiffs employment unilaterally, and despite the fact that the full Commission was not consulted or involved in any manner, as was required by clearly established law. … Nonetheless, he knowingly proceeded in disregard of the clearly established law, sending plaintiff and the discharged employees into unemployment, despite years of dedicated service. * * * *274 COUNT ONE (Maryland Declaration

Agnew v. State

51 Md. App. 614 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jun 1, 1982

Agnew as a "long-established pattern of political fund-raising in the State,” Maryland State Bar Association v. … In addition, having reviewed all the testimony and analyzed the statements admitted, we find nothing clearly erroneous in the trial judge’s factual findings. Compare, Laumer v.

Cornfeld v. State Board of Physicians

174 Md. App. 456 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · May 2, 2007

DeCarlo, Lyon, Hearn & Pazourek, P.A., 162 F.R.D. 94, 97 (D.Md.l995)(by extending qualified immunity to physicians participating in peer review, “Maryland legislature sought to foster effective review of medical care and … To qualify for such immunity, the peer review-must be undertaken, inter alia, "in the reasonable belief that the action was in the furtherance of quality health care[J" 42 U.S.C. § 11112 (a). 11 .

Darvish v. Gohari

130 Md. App. 265 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Feb 11, 2000

Under Maryland law, to establish a prima facie case for defamation, a plaintiff must ordinarily establish that the defendant made a defamatory statement to a third person; that the defamatory statement was false; that the … Communications arising “out of the employer-employee relationship clearly enjoy a qualified privilege.” McDermott v. Hughley, 317 Md. 12, 28 , 561 A.2d 1038 (1989).

Thomas v. State

2 Md. App. 502 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Dec 5, 1967

We find no such abuse here. 1 Appellant next contends that the evidence was insufficient to establish that he was either a principal or accessory to the crime. … As heretofore indicated, the evidence clearly showed that appellant and Matto rented a car in Salisbury, returned in it to Cambridge, and drove to the robbery scene.

Dillingham v. State

9 Md. App. 669 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jul 15, 1970

It prescribes what is obscene and by so doing it establishes the community standard. … The material was not designed for and primarily disseminated to a clearly defined deviant sexual group but to the public at large.

Vaughn v. Vaughn

146 Md. App. 264 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Sep 5, 2002

When asked in oral argument in this Court the significance, if any, of the circuit court’s finding that the bonds are Jay’s property, Jay’s lawyer responded that the finding establishes that Jay is the owner of the bonds … The objective of the rule, to avoid conflicting and perhaps irreconcilable rulings in two cases addressing the same or overlapping issues, is relevant, however, and underlies another well-established holding of the Court

Speer v. Turner

33 Md. App. 716 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Dec 1, 1976

(b) Likewise, we think the chancellor’s factual finding that the building was placed within “10 feet of an interior lot line” was not clearly erroneous. Md. Rule 1086. … Within the limits of the waiver so established, the appellees are therefore estopped from complaining of the building.

Montgomery Mutual Insurance v. Chesson

206 Md. App. 569 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Aug 29, 2012

Shoemaker, HLA is inspected because it is a genetic measure that reviews immune response genes that “help turn down innate immunity following exposure .... ” When “HLA is working, ... innate immune re-signals get converted … This MSH hormone is important in the regulation of innate immune responses and therefore the deficiency results in abnormalities of the innate immune responses. 65.

Jason v. National Loan Recoveries, LLC

227 Md. App. 516 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Apr 1, 2016

Law § 12-413 met the test for qualifying as an “other specialty,” subject to a twelve-year period of limitations under CJP § 5-102(a)(6). Id. at 72. … But the evidence in the record at the time the circuit court granted National Loan’s motion to dismiss does not clearly establish the date on which National Loan was allegedly enriched.

Gables Construction v. Red Coats

Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Feb 27, 2019

evidence establishing that GCI breached the standard of care. … In some cases, the contract may clearly express an intended third party beneficiary, see Schlicht v.

Yost v. Early

87 Md. App. 364 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · May 14, 1991

Based on this testimony, the court did not abuse its discretion when it qualified Olwell as an expert in “computer leasing.” … Yost clearly had the right to cross-examine Olwell on his knowledge of the necessary accounting procedures prior to the admission of Exhibit 91.

Insurance Co. of North America v. Coffman

52 Md. App. 732 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Nov 5, 1982

INA defends on two grounds: (1) that the van was furnished by Bethlehem for Coffman’s "regular use,” and therefore it does not qualify as a "non-owned automobile”; and (2) that even if the van did qualify- as a "non-owned … It is, rather, an exclusion from coverage; and, as succinctly stated in Neuman, 271 Md. at 654 , "[insurance coverage cannot be established by waiver.” VI.

Community Clinic, Inc. v. Department of Health & Mental Hygiene

174 Md. App. 526 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · May 3, 2007

Instead, Community relies on *537 medical assistants who work under the direct supervision of a physician and are trained in phlebotomy, taking vital signs, and administering immunizations. “18. … Shrieves, 100 Md.App. 283 , 641 A.2d 899 (1994), clearly articulated the distinction.

Jackson v. State

164 Md. App. 679 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Oct 6, 2005

The Court of Appeals relied heavily on the qualifying adjectives “substantial or significant.” … The ultimate review, moreover, was clearly under the abuse of discretion standard.

Ocean City Board of Supervisors of Elections v. Gisriel

102 Md. App. 136 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Oct 28, 1994

Clearly, if a voter is “registered”, he or she may still not be qualified to vote, while every qualified voter must, by definition, be registered. … The referendum ordinance clearly requires a petition to referendum to be signed by twenty percent of the “qualified”, not the “registered”, voters.

Newman v. State

156 Md. App. 20 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Dec 11, 2003

Appellant sought immunity for Landry from the State, but the State denied to grant immunity. Appellant argues that Landry’s testimony would rebut the State’s argument that Landry was “controlled” by appellant. … The Court also found that the evidence could qualify as newly discovered.

Steffey v. State

82 Md. App. 647 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · May 7, 1990

The central question in this appeal is whether a violation of a police officer’s immunity under § 728(b)(7)(ii) of the Law Enforcement Officers’ Bill of Rights (LEOBOR), Md. Ann. … Such statements clearly do not qualify as an objection to the trial judge’s amended instruction that followed.

Kruvant v. Dickerman

18 Md. App. 1 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jun 1, 1973

The measure of damages applied to a motor vehicle which has not been entirely destroyed has been clearly enunciated. In Taylor v. … Ladden was qualified to offer his opinion as to the value of the vehicle after repairs.

Melrod v. Melrod

83 Md. App. 180 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · May 31, 1990

With respect to the 1990 M Street partnership, the evidence clearly established that the partnership real estate was sold on 22 January 1988, a year before the divorce, and that Mr. … We cannot say, after reviewing the evidence, that that finding was clearly erroneous.