Case law

Frasher v. State

8 Md. App. 439 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jan 14, 1970

The evidence was submitted to an analytical chemist with the Internal Revenue Service, qualified as an expert in the field of narcotics. … “The immunity which had previously existed had at that time come to an end.” In Schiff v. People, 141 P. 2d 892 (Colorado 1943), the defendant was convicted of the larceny of copper wire.

Heyda v. Heyda

94 Md. App. 91 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Nov 27, 1992

Co., 83 Md.App. 524 , 575 A.2d 795 (1990), [t]he cardinal rule in the construction and interpretation of contracts is that effect must be given to the intention of the parties, unless it is inconsistent with some established … The record clearly reflects that the parties agreed that the numerator of the above fraction would be 246.466 months.

Casper v. State

70 Md. App. 576 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Mar 10, 1987

Thus, before results from a chemical breath test are admissible, the State must establish that the test was conducted within two hours of the driver’s apprehension by a “qualified person” using test equipment approved by … To establish this last point, Section 10-304(e) specifically provides: [f]or the purpose of establishing that the test was administered with equipment approved by the toxicologist under the Postmortem Examiners Commission

Matter of Wooten

13 Md. App. 521 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Dec 2, 1971

It is, of course, well established that credibility of witnesses is a matter for the trier of fact. In this case, the record shows that the court believed the testimony of Mrs. … We think such testimony plainly established the requisite elements under Maryland Code, Article 26, Section 70-1 (g)(h) for a finding of delinquency; thus, we cannot say that *526 the court was clearly erroneous in its finding

Prince George's County Health Department v. Briscoe

79 Md. App. 325 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Apr 28, 1989

Moreover, the testimony presented at the grievance hearing did not establish, nor was it meant to establish, an entitlement for the entire social worker series. … Thus, establishing classifications, like establishing a pay plan, is subject to gubernatorial approval.

Kegarise v. State

211 Md. App. 473 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · May 2, 2013

Although the rule that a Maryland juror must be a United States citizen was not clearly expressed, it was still considered “clear ... that Maryland statutes exclude aliens from jury duty.” Perkins v. … However, it is the process of filing for citizenship that establishes that loyalty; any attempt at prior screening would undercut the efficiency and significance of existing procedures.

State, Department of General Services v. Cherry Hill Sand & Gravel Co.

51 Md. App. 299 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Apr 7, 1982

When sufficient materials are not available from cuts to establish the required grading, the contractor shall supply the fill required .... b. … The State, in its appeal, also raises the issue of sovereign immunity.

Wood v. Toyota Motor Corp.

134 Md. App. 512 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Oct 5, 2000

As such, the plaintiff, to support her theories, must assert or establish that, one, a defect existed. … Leshner was not qualified to express the proffered opinion. B. The “Factual Basis” Issue Mr.

Queen Anne's County Ass'n for Handicapped Citizens, Inc. v. Ringgold

75 Md. App. 535 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jun 10, 1988

The guidelines established by the State for living units such as this residence, followed by the Defendant, were admitted as Defendant’s Exhibit 5. … Jones 1939)): “An estate in fee simple determinable, sometimes referred to as a base or a qualified fee, is created by any limitation which, in an otherwise effective conveyance of land, creates an estate in fee simple and

Turner v. Bouchard

202 Md. App. 428 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Dec 2, 2011

Likewise, the circuit court’s holding that the disputed area did not qualify for the so-called “woodlands exception” was a factual determination, and shall be reviewed under the clearly erroneous standard. II. … Alternatively, Turner argues that lot 17 qualifies for the “woodlands exception,” which is recognized in Maryland and would result in a presumption that Bouchard’s use of the disputed area was permissive. A.

State v. Hailes

217 Md. App. 212 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · May 27, 2014

Those findings of fact were not clearly erroneous. C. … Whether the declaration might qualify under a second firmly rooted exception is immaterial.

Pagotto v. State

127 Md. App. 271 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jul 7, 1999

This hypertechnical violation of a departmental guideline clearly does not establish a prima facie case of gross negligence. B. … We hold that the conduct of appellants in this case, while clearly negligent, was not so extraordinary or outrageous as to raise that conduct to the qualitative level necessary to establish a foundation for the award of punitive

Ransom v. Leopold

183 Md. App. 570 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Dec 30, 2008

Two exhibits, both establishing the dates on which County Executive Leopold and Chief Teare took their offices, are attached to the reply memorandum. … Under the LGTCA, local governments, except to the extent common law immunity is incorporated, have no immunity from torts of their employees unless committed with “actual malice.”

Fludd v. Kirkwood

253 Md. App. 329 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Dec 16, 2021

Kirkwood had presented grounds establishing continued personal jurisdiction over Mr. … Kirkwood’s motion, qualifying it not only as a responsive pleading but also as a general appearance. See McCormick v. St.

Riley v. State

227 Md. App. 249 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Mar 30, 2016

Thus, “the judgment of the trial court will not be set aside on the evidence unless clearly erroneous.” State v. Manion, 442 Md. 419, 431 (2015) (citation omitted). … Acts that qualify as misconduct in office include: neglect or non-performance of any positive duty imposed by law; oppressive and wil[l]ful abuse of authority (to be distinguished

MORTGAGE INV. OF WASHINGTON v. Citizens Bank and Trust Co.

29 Md. App. 591 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jan 2, 1976

See Weiner, at 126-127; Qualified Builders, at 581, n. 2. … This is also the clear import of Qualified Builders, note 2, at 581-582 of 273 Md. 3 We have one more observation.

Porter v. Zuromski

195 Md. App. 361 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Oct 4, 2010

Because of Plaintiffs credit score and impending bankruptcy filing (filed in May 1999), the parties were unable to qualify for a loan jointly. … But Wimmer is clearly not a case of absence-of-fraud equals no-claim.

Leary v. Leary

97 Md. App. 26 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jul 6, 1993

The attorney who assumes the traditional guardian ad litem role has a responsibility primarily to the court and therefore has absolute immunity for “judicial functions,” which include testifying and making reports and recommendations … guardianship duties, judicial immunity may well not attach.

Ruppert v. Fish

84 Md. App. 665 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Nov 7, 1990

We find qualified merit in Cindy’s complaint but none in John’s. … Clearly, then, there was no incorporation of those provisions into the judgment.

First Union Corp. v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co.

126 Md. App. 499 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · May 27, 1999

In so doing, the court found specifically that two forged incumbency certificates, which Reiners submitted in order to establish his authority to act on behalf of Philip Morris, did not qualify for coverage as either “evidence … The forged incumbency certificates in this case are clearly not commercial paper and, therefore, they do not constitute “instructions or advices.”