Case law

Stoddard v. State

157 Md. App. 247 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jun 4, 2004

That clearly asserts that the substance being discussed is pure heroin. In Carlton v. … ,” is clearly not hearsay under Maryland Rule 5-801 and Federal Rule of Evidence 801. It might once have been deemed an implied assertion under Wright v. Tatham. It does not qualify as hearsay today.

Connors v. Government Employees Insurance

216 Md. App. 418 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Mar 25, 2014

Subsection (1) clearly states that it is applicable to “bodily injury sustained by one person as the result of one accident.” … The “subject to” language in the GEICO policy appears as a qualifying clause within subsection (2), located in between two commas.

Saulsbury v. Denton National Bank

25 Md. App. 669 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Apr 10, 1975

The factual situation in the Estricher case, furthermore, makes it clearly distinguishable from the one at bar. … Appellant relies upon the clearly established rule of law to the effect that a trustee who has been adjudged guilty of misconduct cannot charge the expenses of the defense of the suit to the trust fund. . . .

Kurstin v. Bromberg Rosenthal, LLP

191 Md. App. 124 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Mar 1, 2010

Kurstin clearly breached the settlement agreement and the fact that Mr. … In re Franklin P., 366 Md. at 327 , 783 A.2d 673 , clearly established that the four requirements of the collateral order doctrine are “conjunctive in nature” and that “each of the four elements must be met.”

Butler v. State

19 Md. App. 601 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jan 4, 1974

We find some of the cases cited by appellant are clearly distinguishable on their facts and some, indeed, to support this warrant’s validity. … The record shows that the evidence of the witness offered at the hearing on the motion, simply does not qualify as “newly discovered.”

J.H. v. Prince George's Hospital Center

233 Md. App. 549 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jul 27, 2017

Vol.), Health-General Article (“Health-Gen.”), § 10-601 et seq. 2 Each ALJ concluded the evidence established that Appellants qualified for involuntary admission to the Hospital’s inpatient psychiatric unit in … The 1981 revisions required, among other things, that the record must demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence three additional elements to establish that a patient qualified for involuntary commitment.

Pacific Employers Insurance v. Eig

160 Md. App. 416 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Dec 29, 2004

The Pacific policy clearly stated that Pacific was required to pay those “damages” that Eig became legally obligated to pay as the result of qualifying “claims” against him. … Clearly, such notification to Eig from the National Trust and Giddins only can be interpreted as some expression of dissatisfaction with his services.

Oltman v. Maryland State Board of Physicians

182 Md. App. 65 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Oct 1, 2008

As detailed in Oltman I, Oltman’s federal convictions qualified as crimes of moral turpitude, meriting revocation of his PA certificate. … Rule 7-202 clearly contemplates what happened here, ie., that the Board may challenge a petitioner’s right to obtain judicial review of its decision via a “preliminary motion.”

F.D.R. Srour Partnership v. Montgomery County

179 Md. App. 109 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Mar 27, 2008

That clearly taxing jurisdictions have the right to change taxes on property.... … In our view, to qualify as “development,” it is not enough that the permit was one that would enable gross floor area to later be increased by further construction.

Ridge Sheet Metal Co. v. Morrell

69 Md. App. 364 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Dec 4, 1986

At trial, to establish it qualified for a lien, Ridge offered testimony through its vice president that it had performed the rough-in and duct work in accordance with the contract. 2 The date of the last work by Ridge was … One who is in the trade is clearly *375 in a better position than an owner to know whether the contractor is in a financially unstable position.

Davis v. State

68 Md. App. 581 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Sep 9, 1986

That particular predicate for the operation of § 643B(b) was established. … (Doubt exists as to Mississippi because it is uncertain whether daytime housebreaking is a qualifying crime for the habitual offender’s statute in that state.)

Polakoff v. Hampton

148 Md. App. 13 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Nov 7, 2002

after February 24, 1996; or *24 (ii) On or after February 24, 2001, an EBL greater than or equal to 20 g/dl as first documented by a test for EBL performed on or after February 24, 2001; and (2) An opportunity to make a qualified … (a) The Robinson/Leggette Appellees It is well-established Maryland law that, ordinarily, a declaratory judgment will not serve a useful purpose when the same issues to be resolved in the declaratory judgment action will

Freedman v. Comcast Corp.

190 Md. App. 179 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jan 28, 2010

“The intention to waive must be clearly established and will not be inferred from equivocal acts or language.” Frank at 449, 450 A.2d 1304 (citing BarGale, 275 Md. at 644 , 343 A.2d 529 ). … In Lapides , the Supreme Court held that a state waives its Eleventh Amendment immunity when it removes a case from state court to federal court.

Albert S. v. Department of Health & Mental Hygiene

166 Md. App. 726 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Feb 1, 2006

This scheme clearly anticipates that a SRT team comprised of qualified individuals review the medical records of a person applying for [medical assistance]. *734 The medical records submitted to the local department by the … It is well established that a controversy generally is not justiciable if it has become moot. Stevenson v. Lanham, 127 Md.App. 597, 612 , 736 A.2d 363 (1999).

Carter v. Shoppers Food Warehouse MD Corp.

126 Md. App. 147 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Apr 13, 1999

Was the circuit court clearly erroneous in its finding that the facts were insufficient to allege that appellant had notice of the condition of the rubber mat? III. … In her argument that the court erred by excluding Sober, appellant first asserts that qualifying as an expert is not onerous and direct knowledge is not a requirement.

Burdette v. ROCKVILLE CRANE RENTAL, CORP.

130 Md. App. 193 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Feb 4, 2000

We recently have delineated Maryland’s “Boulevard Law”: Under Maryland law, traffic rights-of-way are well established and certain roads or highways are favored. … Johnson’s position on the favored road did not immunize him from being found negligent. We find no error. IV. Appellants also requested that the trial court give the jury MPJI 19:14, regarding last clear chance.

Certain-Teed Products Corp. v. Goslee Roofing & Sheet Metal, Inc.

26 Md. App. 452 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jun 2, 1975

This proposition is clearly incorrect in light of comment 1 to § 2-315 which provides as follows: “1. … The trial judge, apparently because Goslee had failed to sufficiently establish the amount incurred, did not allow the amount as damages. This finding was also not clearly erroneous.

Comptroller of Md. v. Broadway Services

250 Md. App. 102 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Mar 31, 2021

The Comptroller argued that Broadway did not qualify as a reseller because it did not sell the supplies to the hospitals. … That’s the case here with respect to the three hospitals and JHHS, because the testimony and exhibits established that each qualified for the sales tax exemption under TG § 11-204(a)(3).

Comptroller of Md. v. Atwood

Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jul 28, 2021

vehicles covered by the statute are exempt from the tax only if used primarily for the movement of passengers or freight in interstate commerce, where the stipulated facts established … He contends that the term “interstate commerce” “would clearly include any trips across state lines regardless of their underlying purpose.” Mr. Atwood cites to Gibbons v. Ogden, 22 U.S. 1 (1824), W.R.

Adams v. State

165 Md. App. 352 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Nov 3, 2005

Those findings of fact were not clearly erroneous and must, therefore, be accepted by us as the established truth of what happened in this case. (2) Assistant Public Defender Jane McGough The second witness called by the … Those findings were not clearly erroneous, and must, therefore, be accepted by us as the established truth of what happened in this case. (5) Transcript of March 13, 2002, Postponement Hearing In addition to calling four