Case law

Woodruff v. State

11 Md. App. 202 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Feb 9, 1971

And while it is clearly evident that the stag movie in Lancaster v. State, 7 Md. … I am in disagreement with the majority as to what qualifies a person as an expert witness with regard to the three elements of the Roth test and I think that the established law is not in accord with their view of the function

Rivera v. Zysk

136 Md. App. 607 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Feb 8, 2001

Although the list may not be exclusive, nowhere does a debt qualify as income. … He clearly can’t afford to pay eighteen hundred dollars plus five eighty. I mean there’s no question about that.

Mark Downs, Inc. v. McCormick Properties, Inc.

51 Md. App. 171 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Mar 5, 1982

The two county officials demurred on the ground of governmental immunity. … Primarily, what the Court has done in applying the qualifying doctrine is to fashion, as part of the relief granted, conditions designed to lessen, if not avoid, some special harm to the servient land, or to prevent the dominant

collins/snoops Associates, Inc. v. Cjf, LLC

190 Md. App. 146 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jan 27, 2010

If any competent material evidence exists in support of the trial court’s factual findings, those findings cannot be held to be clearly erroneous. Figgins v. … Under these circumstances, the verdict of the trial judge is not only not clearly erroneous but eminently correct.

Giant Food, Inc. v. Department of Labor, Licensing & Regulation

124 Md. App. 357 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jan 4, 1999

ISSUES Giant contends that the circuit court erred in applying the clearly erroneous standard to the Board’s determination and argues: “I. … in the absence of a comma before the qualifying clause ... ”).

Lucky Stores, Inc. v. Street

63 Md. App. 664 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jun 12, 1985

The holding in Barbee clearly supports the position of appellants in the case sub judice. … The Court of Appeals reversed, finding no basis for combining a non-qualifying award under one subsection with a qualifying award under the other subsection so as to make both of them qualify.” 249 Md. at 562 , 241 A.2d 392

Kelly v. Montgomery County Office of Child Support Enforcement

227 Md. App. 106 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Feb 24, 2016

(2) Were the trial court’s findings as to the source of the funds in the accounts clearly erroneous? We will affirm the trial court’s judgment. … (8) The debtor's beneficial interest in any trust property that is immune from the claims of the debtor's creditors under § 14.5-511 of the Estates and Trusts Article.

Alternatives Unlimited, Inc. v. New Baltimore City Board of School Commissioners

155 Md. App. 415 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Mar 3, 2004

Id. *491 On appeal, the Division invoked sovereign immunity. … Once the basis for Count V is clearly identified, the answer is easy.

Gray v. Howard County Board of Elections

218 Md. App. 654 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Aug 28, 2014

If the petition “satisfies all requirements established by law” the Election Director “shall certify that the petition process has been completed” and certify that the “question has qualified to be placed on the ballot. … The petition at issue clearly fails to meet that standard. The petition sets out a table, at the top of the signature page, listing the base densities of five residential zoning classifications.

Gray v. State

137 Md. App. 460 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Mar 28, 2001

, or to qualify as impeachment evidence.... … case, when the issue has been preserved, the court address whether a defendant has a right to witness immunity.

Turner v. Md. Dept. of Health

245 Md. App. 248 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Apr 2, 2020

Turner had already passed away, the MAR Order authorized the Facility to “take such actions as are necessary to qualify [Ms. … Courts of equity intervene only to “remedy some evil or establish some right which [orphans’ courts] are powerless to grant or establish.” Gaver v. Gaver, 176 Md. 171, 189-90 (1939).

Royall v. Dicks

Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Apr 3, 2026

Royall alleged “[t]his statement made to third parties was clearly about” him, given he has “shave[d] his face completely for more than fifty years” and “is not married.” … The Amended Complaint alleges sufficient facts to establish that Dicks made defamatory statements about Royall’s sexual orientation but does not allege sufficient facts to establish Jewell did so. 1.

Shafer Bros. v. Kite

43 Md. App. 601 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Oct 16, 1979

[Sjuch authorization may be established, as it was in the instant case, by oral evidence.” Finally, in Jamestown Banking Co. v. Conneaut Lake Dock & D. … Affidavit Not Required — Exception — Partial Immunity. A motion need not be supported by affidavit unless it is founded on facts not apparent from the record or from papers on file in the proceedings.

Rock v. State

6 Md. App. 618 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Apr 25, 1969

The testimony of Buckley establishes that the appellant was taken into custody at the time the warrant was served. But it does not demonstrate that the procedural safeguards were fully used. … The appellant was not “clearly informed that he has the right to consult with a lawyer and to have the lawyer with him during interrogation.” 4 384 U. S. 471 . Duckett v. State, 3 Md. App. 563 .

Elliott v. Patterson

12 Md. App. 341 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jun 23, 1971

established in Section 499. … To so hold would involve the impermissible exercise of inserting words into a statute to express an intention clearly at odds with that intended by the Legislature. See State v. Blanken, 11 Md. App. 460 .

Lancaster v. State

7 Md. App. 602 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Sep 9, 1969

S. 413 establishes the following test for obscenity: “Three elements must coalesce; it must be established that: 1) - The dominant theme of the material taken as a whole appeals to a prurient interest in sex. a) where the … Viewed against such a background, we believe the film qualifies as “hard core pornography,” within the definí *611 tion of that term set forth in Donnenberg.

Johnson v. Mayor & Council of Baltimore

233 Md. App. 43 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jun 1, 2017

It will not set aside the judgment of the trial court on the evidence unless clearly erroneous[.]” … And equally clearly, the Baltimore Police Department is not an agent or instrumentality of the City.

Payne v. Payne

132 Md. App. 432 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jun 5, 2000

Clearly, some periods of time in the life of a child are more costly for a parent than others. … As appellee only had physical custody of the child for 88 nights, he fell well short of the 128 overnights required by statute to qualify for calculation of support on a shared custody basis.

Middleton v. State

67 Md. App. 159 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Apr 7, 1986

That testimony showed that: nine counties had not been presented with qualifying cases, of which two had no policy; of the seven that did, the policy in six was to automatically file in a qualified case and the other to proceed … Where, as here, the fact of the prior convictions is not disputed and the evidence presented to prove them is clearly sufficient, no issue of the burden of proof is presented. V. Relying on Williamson v.

Homa v. Friendly Mobile Manor, Inc.

93 Md. App. 337 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Sep 9, 1992

This Court will not set aside the judgment of the trial court on the evidence unless it is clearly erroneous. Md. … To prove fraud the following elements must be established.