Case law

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.

Anne Arundel County v. Muir

149 Md. App. 617 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Feb 28, 2003

Those sections addressed the circumstances under which a member or former member of a qualified state or local government subdivision retirement or pension plan could transfer service credit from that plan to another qualified … Clearly, he did not meet all four of the conditions required for eligibility under section 31(b).

Marquis v. Marquis

175 Md. App. 734 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Sep 12, 2007

The court further ordered that it “shall retain jurisdiction in this matter for the purposes of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order [ (‘QDRO’) ] and/or a Qualifying Retirement Order[.]” … Wife’s expert witness, Wendy Widmann, was qualified as an expert in the area of “Qualified Domestic Relations Orders including those orders dealing with the division of military benefits under Maryland law.”

Scott v. Comptroller of Treasury

105 Md. App. 215 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jun 5, 1995

The Fifteenth Amendment clearly ensures appellant’s right to vote in both federal and Maryland elections. We hold that *227 appellant has not been subjected to taxation without representation. … The Eighteenth Amendment establishing prohibition was repealed by the Twenty-First Amendment, but did survive a Constitutional challenge in the courts. .

Board of County Commissioners v. Dorman

187 Md. App. 443 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Aug 28, 2009

But whether a duty exists is not legitimately established by calling an expert witness to the stand, no mater how qualified that expert might be. … The Coates Court explained: *469 We do not wish, or intend, to establish a law that provides an absolute immunity for utility companies and gives them no incentive to use due care in the placement of their poles.

Tapscott v. State

106 Md. App. 109 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Aug 31, 1995

Two experts’ testimony established the blood relationship. … Consequently, the evidence clearly established good cause for the continuance beyond the 180 day deadline, and there was no error in the short delay once the critical time limit passed.

Davidson v. Seneca Crossing Section II Homeowner's Ass'n

187 Md. App. 601 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Aug 31, 2009

The evidence clearly evinced more than the mere loud and boisterous conduct that appellant claims. … Did the lower Court clearly err and/or abuse its discretion in granting a conditional or qualified privilege to certain written and oral communications by members of Appellee IIOA's Board of Directors? 3.

Abell Found. v. Baltimore Dev. Corp.

Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Aug 2, 2024

The court held that the documents at issue “clearly” met the standard announced in Argus Leader. … Abell suggests that because the City bore the burden of establishing that the memorandums qualified for the privilege, the court erred in granting summary judgment in the City’s favor.

DeLeon v. State

102 Md. App. 58 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Oct 26, 1994

qualify for enhanced punishment. … Three qualifying prior convictions for crimes of violence were proved against him.

Department of Economic & Employment Development v. Lilley

106 Md. App. 744 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Nov 3, 1995

Established by legislative bodies, administrative agencies derive their power from enabling statutes that govern them. … Such a result would clearly contravene Title 8’s directive to construe the provisions of unemployment insurance law liberally in order to prevent disqualifications.

Turkey Point Property Owners' Ass'n v. Anderson

106 Md. App. 710 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Nov 2, 1995

It argues, in essence, that —the evidence before the Board of Appeals failed to establish the prerequisites for rezoning the .74 acre portion of the property, —the evidence before the Board of Appeals failed to establish … The legislature clearly could have—but did not—create an exception for situations such as this had it so desired.

Vogel v. Touhey

151 Md. App. 682 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jul 2, 2003

Vogel’s attorney emphasized that appellant hired Touhey to establish that Dr. … Maryland Rule 2-501 establishes a two-part test for summary judgment.

BD. OF EDUC. OF BALTIMORE CTY. v. Ballard

67 Md. App. 235 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Apr 8, 1986

conditions that will attract and hold for all positions the highest qualified personnel who will devote themselves to the education and welfare of students. … The trial court, on the other hand, did, finding that “[t]he County Board directive in establishing personnel policy and procedure states that the purpose of these regulations is to: [Establish conditions that will attract

Carter v. State

143 Md. App. 670 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Apr 3, 2002

An anonymous call that might not be reliable enough to establish probable cause might nonetheless be reliable enough to establish reasonable suspicion. … There clearly was in this case rea *682 sonable suspicion, under Terry, to stop the van and to make further inquiry. D.

Brice v. State

225 Md. App. 666 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Nov 25, 2015

Thus Maryland caselaw has established that, when there are police officer witnesses for the State, police witness questions requested by a defendant are mandatory. … These holdings in Pearson do not affect the mandatory police witness questions as established by Langley and Bowie.

Garner v. State

183 Md. App. 122 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Dec 1, 2008

not so qualify. … Other evidence established that Fields’s nickname was “Sat Dogg.”

Desua v. Yokim

137 Md. App. 138 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Mar 5, 2001

Owens, 28 Md.App. 442, 445 , 346 A.2d 662 (1975), this Court held that a physician was qualified to testify as to the reasonableness of the charge by the Public Health Service Hospital. 7 Id. … Nothing stopped him from getting an *146 expert to contest what we are going to say happened, and how she felt afterwards; that is clearly within her ability.

Robinson v. State

151 Md. App. 384 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jun 25, 2003

The statute clearly provides that if the DNA testing meets the standard requirements of the TWGDAM or the DNA Advisory Board, the evidence is admissible. … We perceive no error by the trial court in denying Robinson’s request for a hearing to determine what the letter so clearly documented. IV.

Reid v. Balt. Ambulatory Center

Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Feb 27, 2026

Krasnow was qualified to testify about the standard of care applicable to Dr. Khan. … McAlary indicated that he disagreed with BACE’s policies and that they were not correct, he was clearly indicating that they breached the standard of care[.]”

Jones v. State

138 Md. App. 12 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Apr 5, 2001

The evidence was clearly sufficient to sustain appellant’s convictions. *19 II. … Rather, it concerns the manner in which states are required to establish the existence of bias. *26 Almendarez-Torres v.