Case law

Mejia v. State

90 Md. App. 31 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Apr 28, 1992

The Absence of a Pattern Turning to the case at hand, we hold that Judge Hyatt was not clearly erroneous in remaining unpersuaded that a prima facie case of discrimination had been established and in not ordering, therefore … So do a significant percentage of 58 million Filipinos, who are clearly not Hispanic. If Imelda Marcos and Corazon Aquino do not qualify as Hispanics, neither their native language nor their surnames would prove it.

Hagez v. State

110 Md. App. 194 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · May 30, 1996

Hagez immunity from testifying, pursuant to Md.Code, Courts and Judicial Proceedings Art. … Rather, it appears to pertain to anyone who qualifies as a "spouse,” without regard to the motive for the marriage.

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.

Wright v. State

72 Md. App. 215 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jul 15, 1987

We are not persuaded that the trial court was clearly wrong. *219 3. … Clearly, the victim did not react to the incident as a person intimidated by the likelihood of great bodily harm.

Wilson v. State

195 Md. App. 647 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Oct 28, 2010

And he left, clearly, very shortly— left his home, clearly, very shortly after he arrived. He certainly didn’t wait to give the three a chance to vacate the area. … As examples of what might qualify as a substantial battery, in Dorsey v.

Stevenson v. State

222 Md. App. 118 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Apr 2, 2015

wide latitude in determining whether expert testimony is sufficiently reliable to be admitted into evidence, and his sound discretion will not be disturbed on appeal unless the decision to admit the expert testimony was clearly … There was, as the State contends, strong circumstantial evidence establishing Mr. Stevenson’s motive to murder Ms. Sipayboun. The State presented evidence that Mr.

Brice v. State

71 Md. App. 563 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jun 10, 1987

In this case, the test result showing a blood alcohol content of 0.24 per cent 1) was admissible and 2) established a prima facie case that the appellant was intoxicated. … The finding of Judge Truitt that the apprehension occurred at 4:16 p.m. 1) was not clearly erroneous as a matter of fact and 2) was correct as a matter of law.

DeMuth v. Strong

205 Md. App. 521 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jun 6, 2012

Strong’s left foot would have been clearly identified as a serious problem, and one that required treatment by a vascular surgeon; that a vascular surgeon would have been brought in; and that the vascular surgeon would have … Thus, in assessing the meaning of the statutory subsubparagraphs at issue, our interpretation must not be so broad as to result in the consequence, clearly not intended by the legislature, of placing roadblocks to recovery

Prince v. State

216 Md. App. 178 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Feb 26, 2014

Did the trial court clearly abuse its discretion when it denied Defense Counsel’s motion for a continuance to secure critical evidence regarding Mr. … And—most damning of all—the misfire was not the shot that counted or that established Mr. Prince’s intent. Ms. Garbe specifically testified that she saw Mr.

Pennsylvania National Mutual Casualty Insurace v. Gartelman

43 Md. App. 413 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Sep 13, 1979

A well-established rule of statutory construction was expressed by the Court of Appeals in State Insurance v. Nationwide, 241 Md. 108, 117 , 215 A.2d 749 (1966). … Gartelman is not a “qualified person.” Section 243H (a) (1) (i), however, permits an exclusion from *423 the benefits otherwise afforded a qualified person.

Dobson v. Mulcare

26 Md. App. 699 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jun 6, 1975

ruling is clearly erroneous or a clear abuse of discretion it will not be reversed on appeal.” … It was not, in order to establish Dr.

Jacobs v. Flynn

131 Md. App. 342 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Feb 25, 2000

Clearly, something short of an actual judgment will suffice.” Swigert v. Welk, 213 Md. 613, 619 , 133 A.2d 428 (1957). … Well surely, yes, because I know that the hospital would be very cautious in screening applicants for their employment and I was absolutely sure that all the employers there were qualified....

Kuhl v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co.

51 Md. App. 476 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Apr 13, 1982

We conclude that the admission, over objection, of the certified copies of the criminal judgments in this case, was clearly prejudicial and amounted to reversible error. II. and III. … Applying these standards, it is readily apparent to us that Prahl’s statement does not qualify for admissibility under this exception to the hearsay rule.

Phillips v. Washington Magazine, Inc.

58 Md. App. 30 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Mar 8, 1984

A plaintiff must establish his case by clear and convincing evidence. New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, supra. … The Editor’s Notes which accompanied the publication of the article clearly stated that Fonzi suspected Phillips was Bishop but that Fonzi could not prove his suspicions.

Duncan and Smith v. State

27 Md. App. 302 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jun 30, 1975

S. 261 : “In order to qualify as a ‘person aggrieved by an unlawful search and seizure’ one must have been a victim of a search or seizure, one against whom the search was directed, as distinguished from one who claims prejudice … It permits a defendant to raise a Fourth Amendment claim and to testify with respect to that claim with absolute immunity from any later use by the prosecutor at the trial upon the merits of his testimony or of his assertion

Rock v. Rock

86 Md. App. 598 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Apr 1, 1991

The testimony of Tamela Bynon of Bynon Associates clearly indicated that the plaintiff while showing enthusiasm, clearly was not qualified and possessed limited technical knowledge. … We cannot ascertain what, if any, value was established for the Marauder investment. If no value was established, it would appear that Ms.

State v. Gross

134 Md. App. 528 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Oct 12, 2000

If the establishment of his criminal agency had depended on the DNA PCR analysis, the State clearly *550 would not have met its burden of production required to take the case to the jury. … The leading discussion is clearly that in Armstead .

Peroutka v. Streng

116 Md. App. 301 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jun 30, 1997

Court immunized all expressions of opinion about individuals in the public official-public figure classification. … Of the four fact patterns provided by the Restatement, Milkovich clearly fits into number four, the one in which no facts are disclosed.

Pace v. State

195 Md. App. 32 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Sep 29, 2010

The appellants further argued that “the extensive federal and state statutory and regulatory regime governing the administration of school lunch programs here, clearly establishes the State’s special duty or relationship … Further, the State asserts the doctrine of sovereign immunity.

State v. Philip Morris Inc.

179 Md. App. 140 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Mar 27, 2008

Accordingly, if a state has a “qualifying statute” in full force and effect and diligently enforces that statute, the auditor must reallocate that state’s share of the NPM Adjustment among the other states that do not qualify … More importantly, the Independent Auditor is not qualified to make the legal determination as to *149 whether any particular Settling State has ‘diligently enforced’ its Qualifying Statute.”