Case law

Goldberger v. Goldberger

96 Md. App. 313 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · May 28, 1993

The Court of Appeals has recently reiterated that judges are impartial participants in the legal process, whose duty to preside when qualified is as strong as their duty to refrain from presiding when not qualified. … Recusal is a discretionary matter, and the judge’s decision denying recusal should not be overturned unless clearly wrong. Surratt v.

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?”

Rose v. Rose

236 Md. App. 117 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Feb 1, 2018

Chreky had established a common residence and maintained a long- term intimate relationship. … First, he claims that some of the expenses Andrea submitted did not qualify as reimbursable expenses under the Agreement.

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.

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.

ST Systems Corp. v. Maryland National Bank

112 Md. App. 20 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Nov 1, 1996

The clearly erroneous standard does not apply to questions of law or legal conclusions drawn from factual findings, which are afforded no deference. Davis v. … In this case, the facts clearly support a finding that the ATL failed to qualify as an enforceable agreement under section 5-317.

Geiger v. State

235 Md. App. 102 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Dec 5, 2017

The problem is that of establishing criminal agency. … That finding was not clearly erroneous.

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 .

Scott v. State

7 Md. App. 505 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Aug 12, 1969

S. 752 , the search clearly exceeded Fourth Amendment limitations on searches and seizures incident to arrest. … XXIV, entitled “Of Process Upon An Indictment,” 318-319; 1 Varón, Searches, Seizures and Immunities (1961), Ch. Ill, § (a), pp. 114-115 and_ § (b), pp. 165-166.

CITIROOF, COPR. v. Tech Contracting Co.

159 Md. App. 578 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Oct 29, 2004

The court made the following findings: In Pavel, [7] and I don’t think that there is clearly established here a binding contractual obligation between the parties. … And in order to pass it off to [Tech], you have to establish that they were unreasonable in relying on it.

Shaarei Tfiloh v. Mayor & Council of Baltimore

237 Md. App. 102 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Apr 27, 2018

The General Assembly clearly delegated authority to raise funds to establish a local stormwater management fund. This purpose is delineated in Envir. § 4-202.1. … Further, Article 27 provides for hardship exemptions for those who qualify.

Jacob v. Davis

128 Md. App. 433 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Oct 7, 1999

Although all assets passing to the Marital Trust could so qualify, an election was required to effectuate the marital deduction. … Further, the formula for correctly funding the Marital and Family Trusts is clearly set forth in the will.

B & K Rentals & Sales Co. v. Universal Leaf Tobacco Co.

84 Md. App. 103 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Aug 30, 1990

Stallings were offered as an “admission” of a party, the theory being that, as Grimes was an employee of appellee, any statements of his that qualify as an admission would be attributable to appellee. … Klasmeier’s opinion, there was clearly insufficient evidence to establish the origin or cause of the fire.

Halici v. City of Gaithersburg

180 Md. App. 238 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · May 30, 2008

. * Hí # % # (iv) Each local jurisdiction that creates a historic district commission ... under this subtitle shall establish and publicly adopt criteria for qualifying as a member of the commission. … Furthermore, Halici’s challenge clearly is distinguishable from the jurisdictional issues raised in Harbor Island Marina and Dutcher .

Pepsi Bottling Group v. Plummer

226 Md. App. 460 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jan 28, 2016

The State Board of Physicians is established within the Department of Health and Mental Hygiene by HO Title 14, Subtitle 2. … This immunity does not apply to a civil action brought by a party to the proceedings of the review committee and claiming to be aggrieved by the decision of the committee.

Miller v. Montgomery County

64 Md. App. 202 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jul 9, 1985

He taught courses at Georgia Tech in traffic signals, coordinated systems, and had been qualified as an *212 expert in traffic signalization in several judicial proceedings. … Rather, the evidence clearly established that the collision resulted from the failure of a traffic light.

Lewis v. Balt. Convention Center

Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Dec 1, 2016

Sovereign immunity functions differently in contract. H. Dean Bouland, Recent Legislation: Abrogation of Sovereign Immunity in Contract Cases in Maryland, 6 U. Balt. L. Rev. 338, 342 (1977). … The Class decided for its own reasons to pursue claims in federal court before suing in state 3 Art. 23A § 1A was, and CJ § 5-5A-01 is, the provision waiving sovereign immunity and establishing a one year limitations

Wicomico County Education Ass'n v. Board of Education

59 Md. App. 564 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jul 12, 1984

The arbitrator directed that the Board give “full and fair consideration to all” qualified applicants. … How this Court would be expected to determine without a transcript that a trial judge was clearly erroneous in his factfinding, Md.Rule 1086, absolutely escapes us.

Reichert v. Hornbeck

210 Md. App. 282 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Mar 20, 2013

is not clearly erroneous and cannot be disturbed. … (C) No parent claiming qualifying child.

Fraidin v. Weitzman

93 Md. App. 168 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Sep 4, 1992

Such acts are not enough to remove the qualified privilege if the intent to join in the plan is not established. Steinberg v. Guild, 22 A.D.2d 776 , 254 N.Y.S.2d 7, 9 (1964); Sharrow v. … Clearly, the instruction indicated that each lawyer and each law firm was to be evaluated separately.