Case law

Williams v. Maryland Department of Human Resources

136 Md. App. 153 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Dec 28, 2000

According to appellant, “the evidence of record establishes at the very least a question of fact on each and every element necessary to establish a prima facie case of discrimination under Title VII.” … Specifically, he contends that there was sufficient evidence that he was more qualified than Heaton, and that the Department failed to follow its own rules and procedures in the promotion process, to establish that appellees

Powell v. Breslin

195 Md. App. 340 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Oct 4, 2010

The undisputed facts before the circuit court established, and, indeed, appellants concede, that Dr. … This language clearly contemplates that consideration of evidence outside of the pleadings may be necessary to assess the sufficiency of a certificate.

Waldt v. University of Maryland Medical System Corp.

181 Md. App. 217 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Sep 5, 2008

Under Maryland law ... he is not qualified as an expert to testify with regards to informed consent in reference to this procedure or this device. The foundation has not been properly laid. It has not been established. … Aldrich testified as well, but I don’t believe he was established as an expert in the field of informed consent.

Tall v. Board of School Commissioners

120 Md. App. 236 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Mar 4, 1998

Appellant also looks to C.J. § 5-402(b), which stated: (b) Immunity; exceptions. … He posits that the Board’s immunity under C.J. § 5-353 should be interpreted in the same way.

Brown v. State

8 Md. App. 462 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jan 14, 1970

He asks, (1) “Was not the jury clearly wrong in finding sanity beyond a reasonable doubt? … We did so to establish clearly the doctrine of merger to be applied in this jurisdiction. We think it has now been clearly established and point out that we shall be more inclined to invoke Md.

Carter v. Aramark Sports & Entertainment Services, Inc.

153 Md. App. 210 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Nov 6, 2003

(cases involving employer-employee relationship, clearly an analog to the present case). … The Court of Appeals confined its holding in Bozman to the abrogation of the doctrine of interspousal immunity.

Roy v. Dackman

219 Md. App. 452 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Oct 6, 2014

qualified in City Homes v. … Simon’s testimony is insufficient to establish medical causation.

Fusco v. Shannon

210 Md. App. 399 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Mar 20, 2013

Rule 5-702, supra, “the admissibility of expert testimony is within the sound discretion of the trial judge and will not be disturbed on appeal unless clearly erroneous.” … Appellants attempt to establish their assertions through Wantz v.

Lawrence v. State

51 Md. App. 575 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · May 7, 1982

In the quest for an impartial and qualified jury, Negro and white, Protestant and Catholic, are alike subject to being challenged without cause. … Any other result, we think, would establish a rule wholly at odds with the peremptory challenge system as we know it. Hence the motion to strike the trial jury was properly denied in this case. Accord Johnson v.

Jeffries v. State

113 Md. App. 322 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jan 29, 1997

This appeal is not a case of outraged innocence qualifying for an act of grace. … Sections 407, 408, 409, and 410, setting out various mentes reae and circumstantial modalities that will qualify murder as murder in the first degree, do not represent separate crimes but only establish alternative ways of

Walker v. State

144 Md. App. 505 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · May 31, 2002

At trial, Gerald Myrick was compelled to testify after being assured immunity from state and federal prosecution. … the clearly separate area.”

Hanrahan v. Alterman

41 Md. App. 71 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jan 10, 1979

voter of Montgomery County residing in the villages, to be and constitute the ‘Friendship Heights Village Council’ for the next succeeding two years, and until their successors duly qualify, each of whom shall qualify on … Clearly, also, the disqualifications contained in Section 3-4 (c) (conviction of crime) and Section 3-4 (d) (persons under guardianship) would be inherently applicable to all elections by “qualified” voters in this State,

Mitchell v. State

51 Md. App. 347 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Apr 8, 1982

App. 644 , 335 A.2d 124 (1975), which is clearly distinguishable from the case at bar. In Dobson , the rebuttal testimony was initiated by the State on cross-examination and was both irrelevant and prejudicial. … Mitchell had refused to testify before the grand jury because of spousal immunity. Appellant then called Mrs. Mitchell’s attorney in surrebuttal.

Ponds v. State

25 Md. App. 162 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Mar 13, 1975

A written stipulation of facts, clearly establishing the corpus delicti, was made. The case then proceeded on the issue of criminal agency. The State offered a confession by the accused to establish criminal agency. … The Court of Appeals pointed out at 354 [577]: “ * * * that specific person must rebut the allegations of coercion as no one else is qualified to do so.”

Dennis v. State

13 Md. App. 564 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Dec 7, 1971

No question is before us as to the satisfactory establishment by the State of the corpus delicti of the crime. … Her primary umbrage at the report of the staff conference appeared clearly to be “that my colleagues gave no consideration to my plea for leniency.”

Maryland Environmental Trust v. Gaynor

140 Md. App. 433 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Sep 10, 2001

This case involves the events surrounding the establishment of an environmental easement over the property of appellees, Cathy Cook Gaynor and her husband, Kevin Gaynor. … This conclusion was clearly supported by the facts presented.

Bacheller v. State

3 Md. App. 626 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Apr 15, 1968

Therefore, any challenge levied at the constitutionality of a duly enacted statute must clearly establish that said statute plainly contravenes the Federal or State Constitutions, otherwise the presumption remains unrebutted … The record before us clearly establishes that the trial court excluded all papers reflecting the guilty finding below, and replaced them with papers designating them as “Appeals.”

Davis v. State

56 Md. App. 694 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Dec 16, 1983

In Edwards , the giving of the inadmissible first statement was clearly established, as were the contents of that first statement. … In such a situation we do not interpret the statute so as to immunize third offenders from its effects. Cf. Leuschner v. State, 45 Md.App. 323, 354-355 [ 413 A.2d 227 ] (1980).

University of Baltimore v. Iz

123 Md. App. 135 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Sep 3, 1998

Does sovereign immunity bar a claim for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing? … To the contrary, the evidence established that he acted in good faith.

Casper v. Chas. F. Smith & Son, Inc.

71 Md. App. 445 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jun 5, 1987

The City also argued that it was immune from liability by virtue of municipal immunity. The court adopted the reasoning of the defendants and granted the respective motions. … a proprietary function and thus the doctrine of municipal immunity bars appellants’ recovery.