Case law

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.

Larry's Enterprises, Ltd. v. Mayor of Baltimore

54 Md. App. 367 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Apr 13, 1983

This testimony was clearly sufficient to have permitted a question of fact for the jury whether there was a reasonable probability of the reclassification. … "If the evidence offered proved to be insufficient to establish a reasonable probability of rezoning within a reasonable time after the date of taking, it would, we think, have been entirely in order for the trial court to

Owens v. State

170 Md. App. 35 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Sep 7, 2006

Part B of the form provides: QUALIFIED: — I am qualified to serve as a juror and will report as instructed. — I am qualified to serve as a juror and will need an accommodation (i.e., sign language interpreter, etc.) … Clearly, Alade was not qualified to serve as a juror, because he was not a United States citizen at the time of the trial. That conclusion does not end our inquiry, however.

Ellis v. Ellis

19 Md. App. 361 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Nov 23, 1973

Litigants in a child custody proceeding, as in all judicial proceedings, are entitled to have their cause determined ultimately by a duly qualified judge of a court of competent jurisdiction. Md. Const., Art. … After all, it has long been established that the State, under our form of government, stands in its relationship to minors as parens patriae. See Thistlewood v. Ocean City, 236 Md. 548 ; also 67 C.J.S.

Sokol v. Nattans

26 Md. App. 65 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · May 5, 1975

As we have seen, the statute was last amended as to substance effective 1 July 1972 whereby the commissions and allowances now in effect were established. … And it is patent that the compensation was not so inadequate as to make it impracticable to find persons properly qualified to act. 11 .

Conyers v. State

115 Md. App. 114 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Apr 2, 1997

One must first be an “accused” and then be placed at a “critical stage” to qualify. Neither situation alone will suffice. … It is presumably the propriety of that ruling at the suppression hearing that the appellant now raises before us, although his procedural focus is by no means clearly differentiated.

Comi v. State

26 Md. App. 511 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jun 3, 1975

Search Warrant Number One The affiant is a police officer eminently qualified by service in criminal investigation and extensive experience in *514 search and seizure. … As to 4016, however, the affidavit was clearly adequate.

Stephens v. Dixon

30 Md. App. 56 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jan 28, 1976

Clearly, there was conflicting testimony on the issue and, accordingly, the trial judge correctly denied appellee’s motion for a directed verdict. … , under this standard, he is already required to establish negligence with respect to such falsity.”

Erman v. State

49 Md. App. 605 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Sep 10, 1981

Katsus had received immunity from prosecution for any peijury which he may have committed before the grand jury. … App. 689 , 429 A.2d 554, 557 (1981): "They make it clear, however, that there is a heavy burden upon those who would abridge the First Amendment right to establish clearly upon the record a compelling need for such abridgement

Wolfe v. Anne Arundel County

135 Md. App. 1 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Sep 29, 2000

Its failure to do so and its subsequent conduct ... clearly establishes estoppel under Maryland law.... (Emphasis supplied). … We hold that the proceeding before the County Board of Appeals qualified, under Batson v.

Saul v. State

6 Md. App. 540 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Apr 22, 1969

The communication to the jury was clearly as to the law on responsibility for criminal conduct and thus was an instruction. … The lower court, in a proper exercise of its discretion, found that he was qualified as an expert psychologist.

Fletcher v. State

50 Md. App. 349 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Dec 8, 1981

The results of that review convinced us that we must remand for retrial. *356 Despite appellant’s failure to establish his purpose in objecting as clearly as was done by proffer in State v. DeLawder, 28 Md. … especially applicable where such witness is a codefendant or accomplice of the accused, or is charged with or threatened with criminal prosecution, since his testimony may be influenced by a promise, hope, or expectation of *357 immunity

Hamot v. Telos Corp.

185 Md. App. 352 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · May 6, 2009

Such authority arises in cases where the urgency of establishing a rule of future conduct in matters of important public concern is imperative and manifest .... … However, such immunity does not apply if a lawsuit is a sham both objectively and subjectively. Prof. Real Estate Investors, Inc. v.

Huber v. State

2 Md. App. 245 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Oct 20, 1967

The court erred in holding the witness immune from impeachment generally on the ground that the Appellant made her his witness for purposes of laying a foundation for impeachment. 6. … This evidence in no way tends to establish the facts at issue (the assault and kidnapping of the prosecutrix), and its admission constitutes reversible error. Judgments reversed; case remanded for new trial.

State Roads Commission of State Highway Administration v. Kamins

82 Md. App. 552 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · May 3, 1990

The State called Melville Peters, a qualified real estate appraisal expert. Peters actually made three appraisals of the property. … The State’s position is that Urquahart was not qualified to give an opinion regarding zoning and his testimony was neither competent nor admissible.

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.

Kammer v. Young

73 Md. App. 565 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jan 13, 1988

A statement tending to expose the declarant to criminal liability and offered to exculpate the accused is not admissible unless corroborating circumstances clearly indicate the trustworthiness of the statement. *581 From … Driscoll’s inability to *587 sufficiently narrow the period in which the alleged questionable conduct occurred, clearly distinguishes this testimony from that in Staley .

Fischbach v. Fischbach

187 Md. App. 61 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jul 7, 2009

material evidence exists in support of the trial court’s factual findings, those findings cannot be held to be clearly erroneous.’ ” Figgins v. … The ERISA provisions generally prevent the assignment or distribution of the proceeds of an ERISA qualified plan to third parties.

McHugh & Associates v. Commercial & Farmers Bank

59 Md. App. 519 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jun 21, 1984

Whether the provisions of Financial Institutions Article § 5-306(b) immunize appellee from liability under the facts of this case. II. … [a creditor were at liberty so do to] the established right of the debtor ...

Best v. State

79 Md. App. 241 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Apr 27, 1989

The other isomers, if it should become an issue in the case, would have to qualify under a. 3. as “chemically equivalent or identical with [L-cocaine].” Unit *266 ed States v. … The chemical equivalency that concerned the legislature, moreover, was clearly an equivalency with respect to the substance’s narcotic effect upon a user.