Case law

Mundey v. Erie Insurance Group

167 Md. App. 444 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Mar 1, 2006

The undisputed evidence before the circuit court clearly established that appellant failed to meet either definition of “resident” because he did not physically live in his parents home, and did not attend college. … The policy clearly provides that in order to qualify for uninsured or underinsured motorist coverage, persons other than the named insured must be relatives of the named insured and must physically live in the named insured

Liberty Mutual Insurance v. Craddock

26 Md. App. 296 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · May 28, 1975

We must determine whether the judge below was clearly wrong when he found that “[t]hese facts clearly demonstrate an intent to establish Baltimore as their new domicile.” … Restatement, supra, § 15, lists three requirements for establishing a domicile of choice.

Chiusano v. Two Farms

Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jan 28, 2026

Currently, the property includes a hotel and restaurant and is surrounded by other retail establishments. … I would like to hear from the [other panel members]. 7 The County also filed its own motion to quash based on legislative immunity.

Anglin v. State

28 Md. App. 150 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Sep 9, 1975

It would be difficult to conceive of a situation more clearly illustrating the need for cross-examination.” … That the witness had recommended giving complete immunity to Billingsley; d. That the witness thought that such attitude toward immunity to Billingsley formed part of his duty as a detective.

Cassidy v. State

74 Md. App. 1 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Feb 3, 1988

A proponent will not satisfy the rule *9 by showing generalized indicia of trustworthiness but must qualify under one of the clearly identifiable and classically recognized exceptions. These are what Ohio v. … Necessary or not, we do not hesitate to hold that the only evidence bearing on the state of mind of the two-year-old declarant in this case clearly, decisively, and overwhelmingly established that her assertion was not the

Milburn v. Milburn

142 Md. App. 518 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Feb 4, 2002

In deciding that the order of the trial court clearly satisfied the second element, we concluded that in the event a litigant was entitled to immunity, the right may exist to forego trial. … In denying the proposed stipulated dismissal, the trial court was clearly concerned about the best interests of the minor children.

Goss v. Estate of Jennings

207 Md. App. 151 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Aug 31, 2012

The nature of the records may be established by a “qualified witness” who has sufficient knowledge of the record-keeping system and the creation of the contested record to establish their trustworthiness. … Given the facts before us, we cannot state with similar decisiveness that Jennings’ entry onto the exit ramp was as "clearly” unforeseeable. .

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.

Burley v. State

5 Md. App. 469 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Nov 20, 1968

State, 208 Md. 210 . 1 An accomplice is a competent witness; his testimony is admissible even though he has been found guilty, confessed his guilt or testifies under a promise of immunity. See Kitt v. State, 2 Md. … As there was legally sufficient evidence to support a finding by the trial court that the witnesses were not accomplices, such finding was not clearly erroneous and as such judgment on the evidence was not clearly erroneous

Burkett v. State

5 Md. App. 211 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Oct 7, 1968

In holding the arrest legal the Court said at page 173: “If Cornish had not stopped, and answered the questions asked him, he might have been immune from valid arrest, as was pointed out in the Blager case. [ 162 Md. 664 … Sufficiency of the Evidence to Support the Convictions for Breaking The appellants concede that the rule is well established in Maryland that in the absence of a satisfactory explanation the *218 exclusive possession of recently

McLaughlin v. Ward

240 Md. App. 76 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jan 30, 2019

That result would obviously be in some 3 tension with “Maryland’s long-established policy against piecemeal appeals.” Waterkeeper Alliance, Inc. v. Md. … “To qualify as a collateral order, a ruling must satisfy four criteria: ‘(1) it must conclusively determine the disputed question; (2) it must resolve an important issue; (3) it must be completely separate from the merits

MacGill v. Blue Cross of Maryland, Inc.

77 Md. App. 613 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jan 6, 1989

Such an allegation does not suffice to generate a genuine dispute of material fact for resolution by a trier *620 of fact. 3 The long and short of this case is that the personnel policies relied upon by appellant as establishing … The record clearly indicates that the position which is the subject of count 1, the job as Director of Underwriting Systems and Operations, was posted pursuant to the company's policies; hence, this violation does not apply

Krause Marine Towing Corp. v. Ass'n of Maryland Pilots

205 Md. App. 194 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · May 31, 2012

Id. at 1002; see also Sunset Review (2009) at 6 (“Prior to 2000, ... accountability in the event of a docking incident was not clearly defined.”). … As for issue two, the Association claims that it is immune from liability under the state action doctrine.

Prince George's County v. Fraternal Order of Police

172 Md. App. 295 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jan 4, 2007

If the eligibility list is not established until more than ninety (90) days after the vacancy, then all vacancies *301 will be filled (or the appropriate person(s) on the eligibility list will be paid acting pay) upon establishment … There is, however, an additional limited area of review which is not as clearly defined.

Wayne v. State

4 Md. App. 424 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jun 21, 1968

response to the question of whether his plea of guilty to the first count was made freely, voluntarily, without threat or fear to himself or anyone associated with him, without promise of a lesser sentence, probation, reward, immunity … On the other hand, the voluntary nature of a defendant’s guilty plea must be clearly established prior to the court’s acceptance of it, James v. Slate, supra, and it must be unconditional, since as stated in Roberts v.

Springle v. Cottrell Engineering Corp.

40 Md. App. 267 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Sep 6, 1978

The jury answered the first two questions in the affirmative, and established the period of entitlement as being from “Aug 75 — Aug 76”. … This, he clearly failed to do.

Carter v. State

10 Md. App. 50 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jul 21, 1970

On cross-examination, Bloom admitted that he had been granted immunity from prosecution for the breaking in this case if he would testify. … In this case, we cannot say the trial court was clearly erroneous in using the defendant’s testimony to support the verdict or in finding scienter based on the other testimony.

Billman v. State of Maryland Deposit Insurance Fund Corp.

88 Md. App. 79 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Aug 8, 1991

FI § 9-307 clearly applied to the loans to the insider partnerships. … Friedman said that McPherson did not “qualify” the Count I loss in terms of a year.

Municipal & County Government Employees Organization v. Montgomery County Executive

210 Md. App. 163 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Mar 4, 2013

The underlying purpose of establishing an orderly budget system with clearly delineated responsibility was the rationale behind the Court’s holding in Foster Children, where it stated: The provisions of the Budget Amendment … Clearly, the Charter permits limits to budgetary discretion.

Sturdivant v. Maryland Department of Health & Mental Hygiene

207 Md. App. 33 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Aug 31, 2012

In rating qualified applicants, an appointing authority “may use any appropriate selection process,” but the “unit must be able to establish the job relatedness, reliability, and validity of the selection tests that it uses … In conclusion, SPP § 7-203 clearly states that an agency can fill vacancies by recruitment or selection from an existing list of eligible candidates.