Case law

Aeropesca Ltd. v. Butler Aviation International, Inc.

44 Md. App. 610 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Feb 6, 1980

Plough, Inc., 228 Md. 484, 486 , 180 A.2d 478, 480 (1962) states that: “Whether a foreign corporation may maintain a suit without qualifying- or registering clearly depends upon whether it is ‘doing business’ as defined in … We cannot say that Judge Thieme was clearly erroneous. Md. Rule 1086.

Braxton v. State

123 Md. App. 599 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Nov 6, 1998

It reasoned that a qualified immunity defense adequately protects “all but the plainly incompetent or those who knowingly violate the law,” id. at 341 , 106 S.Ct. 1092 , and it gives “ample room for mistaken judgments.” … competence could disagree on this issue, immunity should be recognized.”

Edwards v. First National Bank

122 Md. App. 96 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jun 24, 1998

In that case, the Court addressed, inter alia, the scope of the private remedy established by Env. § 4-409(a). … The Bank urges us to construe Env. § 4-401(i)(2)(i)(2) broadly, as a general grant of immunity from suit in favor of commercial lenders.

Stevenson v. Branch Banking & Trust Corp.

159 Md. App. 620 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Nov 17, 2004

Rejecting the bank’s argument that “other cash based benefits” clearly excludes earnings from the exercise of stock options, the court acknowledged that the phrase “other cash based benefits” is “qualified by[,] as is the … Clearly, the tax treatment of these earnings does not definitively establish that they constituted “annual cash compensation ... received from Maryland Federal or [BB & T].”

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.”

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.

Rouse-Fairwood Development Ltd. Partnership v. Supervisor of Assessments for Prince George's County

138 Md. App. 589 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · May 31, 2001

Regarding nonresidential uses, Lockard listed the commercial establishments permitted as a matter of right under M-X-C, but not under R-R zoning. … The principles that govern judicial review of an administrative agency’s decision, as well as statutory construction, are well established.

Greater Metropolitan Orthopaedics, P.A. v. Ward

147 Md. App. 686 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Nov 6, 2002

Despite appellants’ contention that appellee was not qualified to testify on this matter, the trial court overruled the objection. … Clearly, appellee’s testimony regarding her personal knowledge of Ward’s incontinence and swallowing difficulties after the stroke do not *694 qualify as expert medical testimony and is insufficient to prove a causal connection

COLKLEY & FIELDS v. State

204 Md. App. 593 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Apr 26, 2012

Whether it “otherwise qualifies for admissibility,” therefore, becomes our next inquiry. C. … Judge Russell’s non-persuasion was not clearly erroneous. The appellants’ effort to qualify Courts’s testimony from the first trial pursuant to Rule 5-804(b)(5) failed. D.

Andy's Ice Cream, Inc. v. City of Salisbury

125 Md. App. 125 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Feb 24, 1999

Washington Suburban Sanitary Comm’n, 284 Md. 503, 510 , 397 A.2d 1027, 1031 (1979) (sovereign immunity); O & B, Inc. v. … Maryland-National Capital Park & Planning Comm’n, 279 Md. 459, 462 , 369 A.2d 553, 555 (1977) (sovereign immunity)....

Andresen v. State

24 Md. App. 128 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jan 10, 1975

The underlined words clearly set out the specific intent or special mens rea of the crime. … All of these items fell clearly within the ambit of those particularly described “things to be seized” under the search warrants.

Stokes v. State

72 Md. App. 673 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Nov 5, 1987

Because a defendant has a substantial right to have the jury that was impanelled ultimately decide his fate, a judge should not dismiss a juror unless the record reveals that such dismissal is clearly warranted. … By the same analysis, we do not believe that the judge’s observation of “gross inattentiveness,” disputed by defense counsel, was sufficient to establish that the juror was unable to continue.

1000 Friends v. Ehrlich

170 Md. App. 538 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Sep 19, 2006

circumstances exist under paragraph (1) of this subsection, the Board shall determine by a majority vote that: (i) the failure to fund the project in question creates an extreme inequity, hardship, or disadvantage that clearly … Thus, the Department's request to the Board served the dual purpose of seeking approval for State funding and qualifying the project for federal funding.

Wantz v. Afzal

197 Md. App. 675 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Mar 1, 2011

App. 49, 76 , 680 A.2d 532 (1996) (“The trial court’s determination is reversible if it is founded on an error of law or some serious mistake, or if the trial court clearly abused its discretion.”) … In that case, the plaintiff attempted *686 to qualify an internist, who lacked specialty in gynecology and surgery, as an expert in order to establish that the defendant physician failed to perform a hysterectomy according

Nathans Assocs. v. Mayor & City Council of Ocean City

239 Md. App. 638 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Dec 21, 2018

It also clearly shows South Division Street extended to the Atlantic Ocean and indicates, clearly, that the middle of South Division Street is the southern boundary of the property … as strong as their duty to refrain from presiding when not qualified.”

Rosenberg v. Rosenberg

64 Md. App. 487 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Sep 10, 1985

There is clearly no hope of reconciliation between the parties. … This is clearly the situation here.” (citation omitted).

Deckman v. Deckman

15 Md. App. 553 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jun 30, 1972

Dougherty, 187 Md. 21 , 48 A. 2d 451 (1946), Judge Delaplaine speaking for the Court, said at pp. 27-8: ‘To prove adultery, the circumstantial evidence must clearly establish (1) a disposition on the part of the defendant … From this circumstantial evidence together with the total evidence, he found that the adultery of the appellant had been clearly established.

Payne v. Payne

73 Md. App. 473 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jan 7, 1988

Payne produced a real estate agent whom he qualified as an expert and from whom he attempted to elicit evidence that the house would have sold earlier but for Mrs. Payne’s willful breach of the separation agreement. … Payne’s counsel stated that “I’m attempting to establish the basis to try to ask the ultimate question as to whether or not this house would have sold based on her expertise ... I believe that Mrs.

Morris v. State

153 Md. App. 480 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Dec 4, 2003

An exercise of discretion, by its very nature, does not establish a precedent. 3 5. … This was not a case of “outraged innocence qualifying for an act of grace.” d.

Thompson v. State

80 Md. App. 676 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Nov 30, 1989

10-1002 limiting the number of persons necessary to establish the chain of custody. … When in our judgment that undergirding purpose has clearly been served, we are not about to worry over whether there has been blind and literal obedience to the rule in the tradition of a Prussian drillmaster.