Case law

White v. State

23 Md. App. 151 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Oct 18, 1974

The record clearly indicates that appellant made no attempt to lay a foundation for such impeachment by first asking the witness, Morris, whether he had indeed made the statement to which Stokes alluded at the time, place … Their resolution requires only brief allusion to firmly established legal principles. Three objections are made to the trial court’s instructions or refusal to instruct.

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.”

Alexander v. State

52 Md. App. 171 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jul 13, 1982

The *176 request was cumulative, we said, because the court had instructed that in order to qualify or excuse the killing, the defendant had to have believed at the time that a person close to him (his mother) was in danger … Section 12A is a criminal counterpart to Art. 43. § 132, which grants civil immunity to certain persons rendering medical aid under emergency conditions and which was also intended to afford protection to one who assists

Raitt v. Johns Hopkins Hospital

22 Md. App. 196 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jul 19, 1974

Corso, 265 Md. 84, 97 . 1 Thus, it is necessary that parameters be established through which the standard of care or skill may be expressed. We find these parameters clearly established in Maryland. … established.

Winternitz v. Summit Hills Joint Venture

73 Md. App. 16 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Nov 9, 1987

The evidence viewed in a light favorable to appellant clearly suffices to establish an agreement between the parties to renew the lease on the terms set forth in the document delivered to appellant in mid-January. … Frank, and I asked him point blank—I said ‘They \sic ] people qualify. You have already qualified them. Will you give them a lease?’ ‘As long as Mr.

Ridgely v. Montgomery County

164 Md. App. 214 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Sep 15, 2005

Von Feldt's actions were "clearly discriminatory.” 8 . … matter of law, established that he had a disability). 15 .

Mayor of Baltimore v. Dembo, Inc.

123 Md. App. 527 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Oct 29, 1998

Dembo’s business qualified as a nonconforming use upon enactment of the Ordinance. … The recited purposes of the Ordinance set forth above, as well as the substance of the licensing provisions for adult entertainment businesses, clearly demonstrate that these licensing provisions are not in the nature of

Schwan Food Co. v. Frederick

241 Md. App. 628 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jun 27, 2019

Workers’ Compensation > In the Course of Employment > Employee’s Home as a Work Site in General Whether an employee’s home qualifies as a work site under Maryland workers’ compensation law is established by three indicia … In sum, we hold that whether an employee’s home qualifies as a work site under Maryland workers’ compensation law is established by three indicia: (1) the quantity and regularity of work performed at home; (2) the presence

Kim v. Bd. of Liquor Lic. Comm'rs

Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jun 29, 2022

Notably, the provision concerning immunity for investment company directors originated as its own separate bill: House Bill 356. Id. at 311. … Specifically, the Court noted that there was “clearly no direct, horizontal connection or interdependence between them.” Id. at 375-76.

Harris v. Stefanowicz Corp.

26 Md. App. 213 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · May 8, 1975

The omitted language included a phrase more clearly conveying the procedural safeguard to be followed when it appeared to the chancellor that there was a question of law that it would be convenient to decide. “ . . . the … reach the issue as raised, we cannot help but wonder why the chancellor felt he did not have “jurisdiction” to order the return of the down payment in light of his finding: “Now, it’s quite obvious that the Court’s ruling establishes

Wallace v. State

63 Md. App. 399 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · May 23, 1985

His objection was clearly premature, since the State only asked if Mrs. Wallace knew if her son had a license. Curiously, after Mrs. … Furthermore, an owner of goods is presump *411 tively qualified to testify to the value of his goods, Mercer, Cofflin.

Prince George's County v. Morales

230 Md. App. 699 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Nov 30, 2016

As such, the Deputies were acting as law enforcement officers and were potentially entitled to qualified immunity while so acting. Id. at 420 n.6 (internal citation omitted). … Clearly, the County neither authorized nor derived any benefit from Richardson’s actions.

Terumo Medical Corp. v. Greenway

171 Md. App. 617 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Dec 4, 2006

Lynn McLain, Maryland Evidence (2d ed.2001), § 702.2, clearly states, with specific reference to Rule 5-702(3) concerning the basis for an expert’s opinion, that if the proffered opinion lacks an adequate basis, it is inadmissible … Were the expert not properly qualified, after all, the expert’s opinion could not establish the conclusion for which it was offered.

Wilson v. State

4 Md. App. 192 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · May 21, 1968

Whatever his intent was when he approached the scene, his intent and state of mind when he assaulted the deceased were clearly before the jury — “I was afraid that this nut was going to kick my brains out. … , when it knew that his testimony was providing him that immunity, prejudice the appellant’s case and thereby violate due process of law?”

In the Matter of Pughsley

Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jun 2, 2025

“The Constitution does not require, and, thus, does not allow for the disqualification of voters, otherwise qualified to vote, on any other basis.” … To that requirement, the circuit court erroneously engrafted an additional test that required William to establish a “base understanding” of politics.

Uhler v. Secretary of Health and Mental Hygiene

45 Md. App. 282 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Apr 11, 1980

. *285 II Preliminarily, we observe that the lower court was inaccurate in holding that the remedy established by Md. Ann. Code, art. 43, § 404 (1980) was available to Mr. … Clearly, the Secretary’s offer of assistance if there were "any questions,” does not immunize the "notice” provided here against Mr. Uhler’s due process claim.

Sanmartin Prado v. State

225 Md. App. 201 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Oct 2, 2015

Removal for these noncitizens is prioritized “unless they qualify for asylum or another form of relief under our laws, or . . . there are compelling and exceptional factors that clearly indicate the alien is not a threat … Here, Sanmartin Prado established that his trial counsel did not provide him with the correct “available advice” about the deportation risk. Taken as a whole, the advice was sometimes conflicting.

White v. Prince George's County

163 Md. App. 129 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jul 6, 2005

not have immunity from liability for State constitutional torts”); see also Harford County v. … Claiming that he established good cause, White attempts to distinguish Bibum .

Rouse-Fairwood Limited Partnership v. Supervisor of Assessments of Prince George's County

120 Md. App. 667 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Apr 7, 1998

Regarding nonresidential uses, Lockard *680 listed the commercial establishments permitted as a matter of right under M-X-C, but not under R-R zoning. … These additional uses, such as apartments, banks, dry cleaners, department stores, and other commercial establishments, clearly would affect the overall character of the subject properties.

Hignut v. State

17 Md. App. 399 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Apr 6, 1973

clearly that Mrs. … The evidence of possession was clearly sufficient.