Case law

Lasater v. Guttmann

194 Md. App. 431 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Sep 13, 2010

Accordingly, the question whether Maryland recognizes marital torts is independent of the issue of interspousal immunity To be sure, because interspousal immunity existed throughout Maryland’s legal history, until the last … This Court affirmed the ruling of the circuit court on the ground that the non-clearly erroneous factual findings established that the husband long had occupied a position of dominion and control over the wife in financial

Pinsky v. Pikesville Recreation Council

214 Md. App. 550 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Oct 30, 2013

If an officer clearly disapproves of the contract, liability will not attach. For example, in Will v. … However, the General Assembly, in piecemeal fashion, has enacted a number of immunity provisions that could protect members of unincorporated associations established for specific purposes. See n. 43, infra. .

Wilson v. State

124 Md. App. 543 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jan 27, 1999

Although the trooper was qualified to administer the HGN test and, to that extent, was properly received as an expert, HGN testing may not be used to establish a specific blood alcohol level. … As we mentioned earlier, the State never propounded any questions to the trooper to establish that he was qualified to ascertain a specific blood alcohol level based on HGN testing.

STATE ADMINISTRATIVE BOARD OF ELECTION LAWS v. Billhimer

72 Md. App. 578 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Oct 9, 1987

Approximately five months later, January 15,1972, he took an examination for the position of “Chief Clerk,” a job that would *581 qualify him for State merit system status. 3 Billhimer received a “qualifying” rating as a … The memorandum was written eight years before the establishment of the position of Deputy State Election Administrator.

State v. Gordon

11 Md. App. 634 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Apr 23, 1971

Compiled under the supervision of the court, the Master List began with all existing lists of qualified jurors supplemented by election and tax lists. … From the Master List is formed the Service File consisting of all those qualified to be jurors.

McGee v. State

1 Md. App. 239 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · May 8, 1967

We cannot say that the trial judge was clearly wrong in his finding that the actions of the appellant amounted to a commission of the common law offense of resisting arrest. … The final assertion that there was insufficient evidence to establish guilt because the State failed to produce the slips with the lottery notations on them is, under the circumstances, somewhat less than impressive.

State v. Braverman

228 Md. App. 239 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jun 1, 2016

In place of the action for ejectment, Chapter 286 established a lien-and-foreclosure remedy, similar to the remedy for mortgage foreclosures. … The circuit court was clearly erroneous in concluding that the State lacked substantial justification to defend this proceeding.

Rice v. State

89 Md. App. 133 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Nov 1, 1991

When the facts are in dispute, we accept them as found by the trial judge unless he is clearly erroneous in his judgment on the evidence before him. … Where the defendant demands that the chain of custody be established, the provisions of § 10-1001 and § 10-1002 concerning prima facie evidence do not apply. *141 Thompson v.

Shirley v. Heckman

214 Md. App. 34 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Sep 6, 2013

Shirley failed to proffer evidence that could support a finding that the appellees abused the common interest privilege, either by establishing malice or that Mr. … Shirley cannot establish that Mr. Heckman had any knowledge of falsity of those reports. . During his deposition, Mr. Heckman was questioned at length by counsel for Mr.

Beahm v. Erie Insurance Exch.

Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jan 30, 2024

The definition contemplated clearly two distinct situations. When the named insured is an individual, the person who signed the Subscriber Agreement is a subscriber. … The named insured was identified clearly on the declarations page as Starboard, a corporation. Beahm was not identified as a named insured.

Retina Grp. of Wash., P.C. v. Crosetto

237 Md. App. 150 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Apr 27, 2018

Specifically: Doctor Sanders did the surgery, and the gravamen of the case clearly is a 20 percent versus 15 percent [concentration of C3F8 gas]. That’s why he’s a defendant. … With exceptions not pertinent here, the Health Care Malpractice Claims Act (“the Act”) “establishes exclusive procedures for filing a civil action [for medical malpractice] . . . against a health care provider.”

Prince George's County v. Hartley

150 Md. App. 581 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · May 2, 2003

The reporter objected, arguing that he had a qualified privilege under the First Amendment. The federal district court found that the reporter had waived his qualified privilege. … Chandler waived his qualified reporter privilege with regard to this conversation.

Blaw-Knox Construction Equipment Co. v. Morris

88 Md. App. 655 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Oct 4, 1991

For these reasons, the trial court refused to qualify him as an expert on accident reconstruction. This decision was not “manifestly erroneous.” … Where there is no such proof available, the law permits a finding of marriage based upon reputation and cohabitation when established by satisfactory proof.

Mitchell v. Rite Aid of Md.

Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Mar 3, 2023

Under the framework established by Maryland decisional law, the Mitchells did not establish that Moseley’s attack was a reasonably foreseeable criminal act because (a) there was no history of violent criminal activity … Clearly, it would not have prevented Moseley from killing the worker who was standing outside the building. Finally, Mr.

Wilkins v. State

16 Md. App. 587 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jan 11, 1973

He maintains that otherwise qualified voters who failed to register to vote constitute a definite group or class who have been unlawfully excluded from service as jurors. … We cannot say that the trial judge was clearly erron *601 eous in reaching the conclusion he did. Rule 1086.

Leadroot v. Leadroot

147 Md. App. 672 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Nov 6, 2002

We agree with appellant’s assertion that, “clearly, the service time, as opposed to the amount of the contribution, is by far the most important factor in determining the value of the benefits.” … “On appeal, we must uphold the evidentiary conclusions of the trial court unless clearly erroneous.” Strauss v. Strauss, 101 Md.App. 490, 508 , 647 A.2d 818 (1994)(citing Md. Rule 8-131(c)).

Hurst v. v. & M OF VIRGINIA, INC.

49 Md. App. 571 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Sep 3, 1981

In sustaining the demurrer without leave to amend the court stated: *573 "My conclusion is that to establish a lien on this property you have got to establish that the building wherein the work was done was subject to improvement … mechanics’ lien law in Maryland "[had] been repeatedly amended to include specific lienable structures” and that the Legislature "never intended that the law be stretched to include within its scope structures which were not clearly

Metropolitan Life Insurance v. Insurance Commissioner

51 Md. App. 122 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Mar 3, 1982

But there was insufficient information given to employees concerning them and inadequate control established in the operation of them. … It was essential that safeguards be provided as to the establishment, operation, and administration of such plans.

Mitchell v. Rite Aid of Md.

Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Mar 7, 2023

Under the framework established by Maryland decisional law, the Mitchells did not establish that Moseley’s attack was a reasonably foreseeable criminal act because (a) there was no history of violent criminal activity … Clearly, it would not have prevented Moseley from killing the worker who was standing outside the building. Finally, Mr.

Hall v. State

225 Md. App. 72 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Sep 30, 2015

Standard of Review It is well-established that “[t]rial judges are vested with broad discretion in sentencing.” Ridenour v. State, 142 Md. App. 1, 11 (2001). … Clearly appellant’s act of breaking and entering Ms. Goodenough’s home directly resulted in her front door and door frame being damaged.