Case law

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.

Kearney v. Berger

182 Md. App. 186 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Oct 2, 2008

Carroll established that the filing of a proper certificate operates as a condition precedent to filing a claim in Circuit Court. … Because the trial court never addressed whether appellants established good cause, we will not resolve whether good cause existed in this case.

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.

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 .

Preston v. State

57 Md. App. 403 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Feb 2, 1984

Payments made by a victim for which he received reimbursement from his insurance carrier, did not qualify for restitution. Montgomery v. State, 292 Md. 155 , 438 A.2d 490 (1981). … Clearly the lower court’s order of March 13, 1961, in this case was not appealable, unless the proceeding below was under the Post Conviction Act.

Fludd v. Kirkwood

Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Dec 16, 2021

Kirkwood had presented grounds establishing continued personal jurisdiction over Mr. … Kirkwood’s motion, qualifying it not only as a responsive pleading but also as a general appearance. See McCormick v. St.

Gainer v. State

40 Md. App. 382 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Oct 11, 1978

The principal contention of the State in this case is that the appellant was clearly the aggressor and, not being without fault, may not avail himself of the castle doctrine. … Courts differ in interpreting what qualifies as being within the curtilage. See Beard v. United States, 158 U. S. 550 (1895) (property surrounding defendant’s farm was within the curtilage); State v.

Thompson v. Thompson

40 Md. App. 256 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Sep 6, 1978

toothless one,’ id., at 510, 96 S.Ct. at 2764 , a proposition clearly demonstrated by our previous decisions in this area.” … No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor

Smith v. Luber

165 Md. App. 458 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Nov 3, 2005

Both parties were asked qualifying questions by their attorneys about their acceptance of the agreement on the record and both acknowledged their acceptance. … Maryland law clearly establishes that attorney’s fees may not be recovered absent an express contractual provision, statutory authority, or the application of Md. Rule 1-341. Moore v.

Maryland Shipbuilding & Drydock Co. v. Maryland Commission On Human Relations

70 Md. App. 538 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Mar 9, 1987

Whether the evidence, in light of the entire record, establishes that Jackson was neither as qualified nor more qualified than employees promoted to the position of lieutenant guard. III. … Insofar as appellant’s argument asserts that Jackson failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination, we reject it out of hand.

Anastasi v. Montgomery County

123 Md. App. 472 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Oct 28, 1998

After the scores were returned, applicants were grouped into two separate categories — one marked “well-qualified” and another marked “qualified” — and then ranked, by score, within their respective categories. … The categories were established on September 30, 1993, and “held open” until September 30, 1995.

Simpkins v. State

88 Md. App. 607 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Oct 3, 1991

Branson, a pediatrician who had treated Brandy on earlier occasions, testified that Brandy had missed her two-month and four-month immunizations. … in this case____” The argument, essentially, is that this finding is clearly erroneous, unsupported by substantial evidence.

In re: K.H., J.H., D.H.

Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Nov 18, 2021

duty to refrain from presiding when not qualified. … “[T]here is a strong presumption . . . 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.”

Archers Glen Partners, Inc. v. Garner

176 Md. App. 292 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jul 6, 2007

The court concluded that it was *310 not, while acknowledging that the Court of Appeals had held that the Commission was a State agency and immune from tort suits under the doctrine of State sovereign immunity. … The facts in Richmarr, 117 Md.App. 607 , 701 A.2d 879 , are an example of when a proposed use would be clearly inconsistent with the plan and when the express exception would be clearly applicable.

Salvagno v. Frew

158 Md. App. 315 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Sep 3, 2004

Expert medical testimony is not required to establish the “scope” or the “breach of the physician’s duty,” but it is required to establish the “nature of the risks inherent in a particular treatment, the probabilities of … Leahy, 326 Md. 160, 166 , 604 A.2d 73 (1992), the Court, in considering whether an “award” is divisible between liability and damages for the purpose of rejecting an award, said that “the arbitration award on the merits is clearly

Heinlein v. Stefan

134 Md. App. 356 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Sep 29, 2000

The analytic framework for examining such a question in Maryland was established by Judge Raker in Davis v. Davis, 335 Md. 699 , 646 A.2d 365 (1994). … The adverbial qualifier is nestled snugly within the second pre-condition and is fenced off from the third precondition by a semi-colon.

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.”

Zimmerman v. State

9 Md. App. 488 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · May 27, 1970

Ed. 680 , and for a waiver to be effective it must be clearly established that there was ‘an *496 intentional relinquishment or abandonment of a known right or privilege.’ Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U. S. 458, 464 , 58 S. … It does, not show that appellant personally waived his right to a jury trial nor can we say that it “clearly established” that there was acknowledgeable acquiescence in his lawyer’s waiver.

St. Luke Evangelical Lutheran Church, Inc. v. Smith

74 Md. App. 353 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jun 24, 1988

Rule 2-512(h) clearly limits each party to a maximum of four initial peremptory challenges. … To accept such reasoning would in effect re-establish the doctrine advanced by the plurality opinion in Rosenbloom v.

Bacon v. State

82 Md. App. 737 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · May 9, 1990

. *741 Clearly, the trial court contemplated the character of the weapon at issue in its determination to deny the appellant’s motion. … First, we noted that the Court of Appeals established, in Mackall v.