Case law

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.

Tillery v. State

12 Md. App. 624 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Aug 9, 1971

“It is clearly, in my opinion, another offensive weapon which was found on the Defendant under the section qualifies it [sic], in places and under circumstances from which might be presumed an intent feloniously to assault … The facts did not establish this conclusion. All they showed as to the conduct of appellant before the arrival of the police was that someone said there was a disorderly man with a knife.

Boone v. State

3 Md. App. 11 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jan 24, 1968

Thus we think that the testimony of Craft was competent evidence and, being clearly material, was admissible against the appellant. … The rule as established by statute in New York, Alabama and California is to like effect. In People v.

Bowser v. Resh

170 Md. App. 614 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Sep 20, 2006

It is, therefore, clearly a question for the trier of the facts to decide. Id. at 500 , 154 A.2d 826 (citations omitted). … Thus the Federal rule, which seems to be clearly-established, is that an affirmative defense may be raised for the first time by summary judgment motion when that motion is the defendant’s initial response to the plaintiffs

Duckworth v. Kelly-Springfield Tire Co.

30 Md. App. 348 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Feb 27, 1976

While it is true, as stated in Barnes, that an ambiguity in the compensation law is to be resolved in favor of the claimant, we find no such ambiguity in Section 36 (4a); to us, the intent of the Legislature was clearly to … This amendment indicates that the language in § 36 (4a) that a person must receive an award of 250 weeks compensation under § 36 (3) or (4) or a combination of both to qualify for serious disability benefits, should not be

Davis v. Magee

140 Md. App. 635 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Aug 29, 2001

“Court records” and “police records” are defined inclusively and exclusively: the statute explains what they are and specifies records that do not qualify. … The summary judgment cannot be upheld on grounds of immunity. 2 .

Montgomery County v. Buckman

96 Md. App. 206 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · May 26, 1993

Clearly, Buckman could cite Whittaker if the doctrine of collateral estoppel applies. … Clearly, § 33-43(e) is benevolent in nature and remedial in purpose.

Davis v. State

199 Md. App. 273 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jun 2, 2011

, passing through four or five states en route, would enjoy similar immunity. … The Tenth Circuit followed the Rodriguez case from the Second Circuit and held that the listening post qualifies as a point of interception.

Supervisor of Assessments v. Fitzgerald

49 Md. App. 411 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jul 16, 1981

He stated that pursuant to statutory authority the State Department of Assessments and Taxation established criteria for determining whether lands qualified for preferential taxation as agricultural property. … The State Department of Assessments and Taxation shall establish criteria for the purpose of determining whether lands which appear to be actively devoted to farm or agricultural use are in fact bona fide farms and qualify

Maryland Securities Commissioner v. U.S. Securities Corp.

122 Md. App. 574 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Aug 26, 1998

Clearly, there was substantial evidence to support the agency’s finding of an offer or sale of securities. … Clearly, the Maryland residents were deceived by acts or a course of business in connection with the offer and sale of stock.

Vournas v. Montgomery County

53 Md. App. 243 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Dec 7, 1982

The Court of Appeals clearly stated this rule in Villa Nova Night Club v. … Therefore, under appellant’s theory, immunity was waived for this transfer, even assuming, arguendo, that the legal incidence had been on the United States.

Mitchell v. Montgomery County

88 Md. App. 542 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Oct 2, 1991

Both of these witnesses were properly qualified as experts. … Clearly, Merryman was not, as proffered by the County and asserted on appeal, solely a "fact witness to describe this road."

Bergmann v. Board of Regents of University System

167 Md. App. 237 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Feb 23, 2006

. *266 Decisions regarding whether individual students qualify for the lower in-state tuition rate are made by the Board via policies and procedures established by the Board. 15 Through this process, UM determines domicile … The Court of Appeals in Frankel , in the context of discussing UM’s asserted waiver and sovereign immunity defenses, held that Mr.

Back v. Internal Revenue Service

51 Md. App. 681 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jun 2, 1982

In the rest of the text of this chapter, we have not attempted to qualify the dicta, though the issue is worth presenting for decision. In United States v. … There is nothing in the record to establish that assessment was timely made and it seems to us that the burden is on IRS to establish the timeliness of the assessment.

Dize v. Ass'n of Maryland Pilots

205 Md. App. 176 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · May 31, 2012

as a Jones Act seaman and ... clearly, he’s way beyond the 30 percent which is a rule of thumb and not a bright line as the Association argues. … Dize failed to ''establish!] the existence of a material dispute of fact as to whether the vessel was in navigation at the time of the injury.” Mr.

In Re Adoption/Guardianship No. 2633 in Circuit Court for Washington County

101 Md. App. 274 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Sep 2, 1994

Rebecca Hegar, a qualified foster care expert, testified that an attachment among the R. children, if broken, would lead to a “lifelong sense” of “loss” for the siblings. … Gregory Powell, testified that, based on the previous bonding that occurred between Tiffany and the Mauk family, a parental reattachment with them could be easily re-established.

General Motors Corp. v. Bark

79 Md. App. 68 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Mar 31, 1989

Let it be unmistakably clear, however, that this does not remotely suggest that we think Judge DeWaters was wrong, let alone clearly wrong. … The qualifying language only takes on significance when it is the claimant who has prevailed before the Commission and the defendant/insurer who appeals to the circuit court.

North American Specialty Insurance v. Boston Medical Group

170 Md. App. 128 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Sep 8, 2006

The second check, in the amount of $375.00, does not identify clearly the claim to which it relates. … These checks do not establish that the amount claimed in the instant action arose within the limitations period.

Heger v. Heger

184 Md. App. 83 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Feb 3, 2009

Heger’s counsel established that Ms. Heger did not provide figures to the IRS on her income tax returns that were consistent with her testimony. Based upon the entirety of the evidence, the Court has established Ms. … of whether the motion nonetheless qualified under one or both of the exceptions to the filing deadline under subsection (b) or subsection (d).