Case law

McCray v. State

84 Md. App. 513 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Oct 31, 1990

Generally, one walking along a public sidewalk or standing in a public park cannot reasonably expect that his activity will be immune from the public eye or from observation by the police. … Clearly, the videotape of McCray was captured in a public place and in public view.

Gee v. State

2 Md. App. 61 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Sep 26, 1967

The argument is patently frivolous. *69 II The appellant has framed the second issue in terms of a privileges and immunities violation. … Madison, 240 Md. 265 , bring their cases clearly within the rule set forth in the above case.” *71 The appellant contends that he has been placed in double jeopardy although his first conviction was reversed under Gideon

T. R. Ltd. v. Lee

55 Md. App. 629 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Oct 6, 1983

There is no mention of a lien, and none can be implied from the mere establishment of a monetary obligation on the owner of a vehicle. … It appears, however, that the tractor-trailer was not covered by a bill of lading, as is required to establish a carrier’s lien.

Lustine Chevrolet v. Cadeaux

19 Md. App. 30 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Aug 24, 1973

Appellee contends that she established all of the essential elements of fraud. … Nor was there any expert testimony to establish that fact with the requisite reasonable certainty.

Harris v. State

6 Md. App. 7 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Feb 3, 1969

We know of no authority, nor does he cite any, which would compel his release, immune from further prosecution on the charges, on a finding that the prior indictments were improperly dismissed. … The record indicates that defense counsel were competent and well qualified to defend the appellant.

Millard v. State

8 Md. App. 419 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jan 12, 1970

Jacobson’s testimony, if believed, clearly established that appellant possessed an extra Y chromosome (XYY) and that he was therefore genetically abnormal. … Jacobson was a well qualified geneticist was clear beyond question.

Hagan v. Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission

20 Md. App. 192 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Feb 14, 1974

The Board of County Commissioners was dismissed as a defendant upon motion raising preliminary objection on the ground of governmental immunity. … Bernfeld, 226 Md. 400 , at 405: “The general rule by which the sufficiency of the evidence is to be tested when this Court is reviewing a motion for a directed verdict or judgment n.o.v. for the defendant is well established

Moore v. State

26 Md. App. 556 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jun 3, 1975

Chilimindris established the corpus delicti. The admissible declaration of the young child that “Daddy did it,” helped to establish the criminal agency of the appellant. … The verdict, therefore, was not clearly erroneous. Judgment affirmed; costs to be paid by appellant. 1 .

Tarachanskaya v. Volodarsky

168 Md. App. 587 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · May 2, 2006

Living arrangements established as the result of a protective order may have relevance in determining custody.... Id. at 136-37, 762 A.2d 198 . … Snow nor Dizard “demonstrated the minimal amount of competence to qualify as experts in this case.”

In re Darryl P.

211 Md. App. 112 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Mar 25, 2013

In such a case, the failure of the appellant to qualify for exclusion pursuant to Mapp v. Ohio is, ipso facto, the failure to qualify for exclusion pursuant to the “fruit of the poisonous tree” doctrine. … Arizona immunity shield was never born. If, arguendo, it was born, it died within two weeks. As our subheading foretold, this subcontention is a case of “Edwards v. Arizona Inapplicable.”

Gaither v. Anne Arundel County

94 Md. App. 569 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jan 11, 1993

As discussed earlier, crucial to an employee’s prima facie case is the employee establishing that he is otherwise qualified to perform the essential functions of a job. Baltimore, 86 Md.App. at 176, 586 A.2d 37 . … Establishing that one is “otherwise qualified” for a job necessarily entails a consideration of whether one would be qualified if his handicap were accommodated by the employer. Id. at 174 , 586 A.2d 37 .

Mayor of Baltimore v. One 1995 Corvette Vin No. 1G1YY22P585103433

119 Md. App. 691 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Feb 26, 1998

Unlike the documentary evidence immunized from seizure by Boyd , contraband would not in that case have enjoyed any Fifth Amendment protection and would not have enjoyed the then-current immunity of the “mere evidence rule … Mulcahey has failed to establish by the “clearest proof’ that Congress has provided a sanction so punitive as to “transfor[m] what was clearly intended as a civil remedy into a criminal penalty.”

Manigault v. State

61 Md. App. 271 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jan 10, 1985

A simple, common law assault does not qualify. Either an assault with intent to rob or an *280 assault with intent to murder would so qualify. … Each fourth count fails to locate the place of the crime so as to establish jurisdiction and/or venue except by reference to the first count.

Haina and Strawbridge v. State

30 Md. App. 295 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Feb 26, 1976

Cir. 1975). “(7) immunity grants (Despite the fact that the controlled dangerous substance law specifically provides for the granting of immunity Art. 27 § 298 (c), the record discloses that only once during trial did the … State attempt to grant immunity and immunity was not mentioned at all in the application.)”

Brown v. State

168 Md. App. 400 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Apr 18, 2006

Appellant concedes that the State’s evidence was sufficient to establish that he committed this offense, but he argues that this Court must reverse his conviction on the ground that THE [HONORABLE DAVID S. … State, 390 Md. 544 , 890 A.2d 288 (2006), in which the Court of Appeals recently answered “no” to the question of “whether a police officer, testifying at a suppression hearing, is required to be qualified as an expert witness

Johnson v. Francis

239 Md. App. 530 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Nov 28, 2018

Jackson, 442 Md. 311 (2015). 16 indemnify an employee established in this subsection.”9 Thus, the Department contends, subsection (b)(2) establishes that the “shall be liable … (2) A local government may not assert governmental or sovereign immunity to avoid the duty to defend or indemnify an employee established in this subsection.

Kidd v. State

33 Md. App. 445 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Nov 3, 1976

The Court of Appeals spoke very clearly to this point in Everhart v. … Ct. 1860 , 6 L.Ed.2d 1037 (1961), was unequivocal: “The ultimate test remains that which has been the only clearly established test in Anglo-American courts for two hundred years: the test of voluntariness.

Little v. Union Trust Co.

45 Md. App. 178 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Apr 9, 1980

; with public morals, as in the case of houses of prostitution, illegal liquor establishments, gambling houses, indecent exhibitions, bullfights, unlicensed prize fights, or public profanity; with the publice [sic] peace, … City of Annapolis, 182 Md. 307 , 34 A.2d 603 (1943), upon which appellants rely, is clearly not supportive of their argument.

Gross v. Sessinghause & Ostergaard, Inc.

85 Md. App. 727 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jan 31, 1991

We assume that appellant cites this text in an effort to establish that a rigidly applied mechanical test is inappropriate in establishing average weekly wages. … We hold that the trial court was not clearly erroneous; in fact, it was correct. JUDGMENT AFFIRMED. COSTS TO BE PAID BY APPELLANT.

Innerbichler v. Innerbichler

132 Md. App. 207 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jun 16, 2000

Appellee sought to establish that she had no prospects for lucrative employment. … Findings of this type are subject to review under the clearly erroneous standard embodied by Md. Rule 8-131(c); we will not disturb a factual finding unless it is clearly erroneous.