Case law

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.

Robinson v. State

47 Md. App. 558 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Feb 4, 1981

Having been thus qualified, Ms. Hostetler described the technique she had employed in analyzing the blood samples at issue in this case. … Paraphrasing and elaborating upon a test established earlier in Frye v. United States, 54 U.S. App.

Chadderton v. M.A. Bongivonni, Inc.

101 Md. App. 472 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Sep 6, 1994

Desi), the reports would have qualified under the business records exception to the hearsay rule. … This is a matter clearly within the court’s discretion. The trial judge did not abuse that discretion. 5 .

State v. Prince

Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Apr 7, 2026

After establishing that trial counsel recalled trying Mr. Prince’s case and that cell site location data was involved, Mr. … because “Detective Kim was never qualified as an expert,” his cell site data testimony was inadmissible.

Nathans Assoc. v. Ocean City

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.”

Payne v. State

211 Md. App. 220 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Feb 27, 2013

Under our holding in Wilder , it was clearly error for the court to admit this evidence without expert testimony. On remand, this evidence may only be introduced through a witness qualified as an expert. … These facts are not sufficient to establish an express conspiracy of concealment extending to November 1981. Id.

Contract Construction, Inc. v. Power Technology Center Ltd. Partnership

100 Md. App. 173 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Apr 29, 1994

The complaint against CCI was dismissed because it was Fahy’s statutory employer and thus immune from suit under the Maryland Workers’ Compensation Act. … Second, if the dispute sought to be arbitrated is clearly outside the scope of the arbitration clause, arbitration must be denied. Id.

In re Michael W.

134 Md. App. 144 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Sep 11, 2000

Corbin, the trial court’s decision clearly would have been correct. … It is a philosophical problem that we need not resolve, however, because we find another unique element in § 16 — 113(h) that clearly qualifies as an “element.”

David N. v. St. Mary's County Department of Social Services

198 Md. App. 173 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Apr 1, 2011

Subsections (b) and (c) establish the timing, mandated steps, and scope of the required investigation. … that certain reporting requirements apply only to certain persons in this State; providing certain immunity for certain persons under certain circumstances; establishing that certain investigation procedures apply only to

Continental Casualty Co. v. Mirabile

52 Md. App. 387 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Sep 7, 1982

The liability clearly does not extend to mere insults, indignities, threats, annoyances, petty oppressions, or other trivialities. … The co-employee may be immune from suit where both the tortfeasor and the victim are acting in the course of their employment. See Nelson v. Harding, 480 P.2d 851 (Colo. 1980).

McLaughlin v. Ward

Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jan 30, 2019

That result would obviously be in some 3 tension with “Maryland’s long-established policy against piecemeal appeals.” Waterkeeper Alliance, Inc. v. Md. … “To qualify as a collateral order, a ruling must satisfy four criteria: ‘(1) it must conclusively determine the disputed question; (2) it must resolve an important issue; (3) it must be completely separate from the merits

Burden v. Burden

179 Md. App. 348 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Apr 3, 2008

“Whether the Trial Court’s finding, by implication, that the Appellee’s paternity had not been established under the laws of South Dakota was clearly erroneous?” II. … In the case before us, clearly there was no fraud or material mistake of fact. Michael knew, beyond doubt, that he was not Malachi’s father when he signed the paternity affidavit.

Springhill Lake Investors Ltd. Partnership v. Prince George's County

114 Md. App. 420 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Mar 5, 1997

’s refinance exemption — “the paying off of the $400,000.00 debt by a new mortgage qualified as a form of refinancing.” … The closing statement clearly shows a disbursement of $60,116,-422.75 to CIGNA. In our view, the closing documents suggest of no transaction other than a refinancing transaction.

Pietruszewski v. State

245 Md. App. 292 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Apr 7, 2020

In addition, the State established that the hotel was located “just a couple blocks from” the restaurant where Ms. … When the second qualified juror is called, the defendant shall indicate first whether that qualified juror is challenged or accepted.

Wilson v. State

8 Md. App. 653 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Feb 10, 1970

We cannot say that the judgment of the court was clearly erroneous on the evidence before it and thus we may not set it aside. … Impossibility of conviction is not the same as innocence and if the guilt of two is established one may be convicted although the other may be protected by diplomatic immunity or some' other procedural bar.

Mayer v. Montgomery County

143 Md. App. 261 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Mar 27, 2002

He thus was placed in the “qualified” category. Twenty-six other applicants had placed in that category as well. Eight applicants had placed in the “well qualified” category. … As we have noted, the documents in question clearly fell within the scope of SG section 10 — 618(c)(1).

Willow Tree Learning Center, Inc. v. Prince George's County

85 Md. App. 508 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jan 21, 1991

Did the court below err in granting Prince George’s County’s and Evelyn Hoban’s Motion for Summary Judgment on the issue of immunity? 2. Is Willow Tree entitled to judgment as a matter of law on the issue of immunity? … The Maryland Occupational Safety and Health Act (MOSHA) provides for the inspection of facto *521 ries, plants, establishments, construction sites, work places, places of employment, and work environments.

Bastian v. Laffin

54 Md. App. 703 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · May 18, 1983

When Edward Laffin died, Maj-Lis qualified as executrix. The estate was represented by appellant Bastian. … In light of the record as a whole, we cannot say that these conclusions were clearly erroneous.

Levin v. State

1 Md. App. 139 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Apr 10, 1967

Appellant •concedes the photographs are utterly without redeeming social value, but urges that the State has not established that the •other two elements set forth under the Roth-Alberts test of obscenity coalesce. … However, we are mindful of our obligation to make a reflective, *144 independent judgment on the facts of the case and that ordinarily neither the judge who may sit in the lower court nor the judges of this Court would be qualified

Court v. Court

67 Md. App. 676 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jun 4, 1986

The second aspect, assuming the property qualifies, is whether there ought to be a use and possession order. … There is no question as to (ii) or (iii); they are clearly met.