Case law

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).

Henderson v. State

13 Md. App. 384 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Nov 15, 1971

State, 103 Md. 17 , adopted this rule of evidence but qualified it by stating at 103 Md. 20 , ‘a foundation must first be laid, by proof, sufficient in the opinion of the judge, to establish, prima facie, the fact of conspiracy … The testimony of an accomplice is clearly admissible to prove a conspiracy, Foster v.

Robert B. v. State

193 Md. App. 620 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jul 8, 2010

It is firmly established as a civil aetion[.]” Id. (citing Howlett, v. … There is no contention that appellant would not qualify for expungement because of this provision. .

Simko, Inc. v. Graymar Co.

55 Md. App. 561 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Sep 9, 1983

In order to establish duress, there must be a wrongful act which deprives an individual of the exercise of his free will. Eckstein v. Eckstein, 38 Md. App. 506, 512 , 379 A.2d 757 (1978). … Judge Kaplan’s findings regarding the 1974 letter are not clearly erroneous. Md. Rule 1086. 4.

Widdoes v. Widdoes

12 Md. App. 225 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jun 8, 1971

In Orndoff it seemed that the evidence of adulterous conduct was “conflicting and unpersuasive” so that the lower court was not clearly erroneous in finding that the alleged misconduct had not been established. … While this dictum could be deemed an indication that the rigors of the established rule may be relaxed by the Court of Appeals in some future case, it has not as yet been applied; we feel obliged to follow the established

Montgomery County v. Maryland Economic Development Corp.

204 Md. App. 282 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Mar 30, 2012

Further evidence established by the [County] was that [the County] had not, by law, created an exemption as set forth in Sections 112-116, supra. … On the contrary, in case of doubt as to the legislative intention, the presumption is in favor of the taxing power and the burden is on the claimant to establish clearly his right to exemption by bringing himself clearly

Bryant v. State

163 Md. App. 451 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jun 1, 2005

Moreover, he asserts: “This error precluded Appellant from presenting any defense and reversal is clearly warranted.” … Moreover, he contends that “the factual predicate” for the testimony was established “in the State’s own case.”

Dageforde v. Potomac Edison Co.

35 Md. App. 37 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Feb 9, 1977

The trial judge found: “Now, the plaintiff has introduced an expert whom I found to be qualified to testify and give an opinion. … The trial court found that this had not been established to the satisfaction of the finder of fact. As there was evidence to support this finding, we cannot second guess to hold the finding clearly erroneous. Staley v.

Bennett v. State Department of Assessments and Taxation

171 Md. App. 197 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Oct 2, 2006

. ■ If so, it must be included in his net worth calculation, and he does not qualify for the HTC. If not, it is properly excluded from that calculation, and he does qualify for the HTC. … Therefore, before any claimant can obtain an exemption, it is encumbent [sic] upon him to show affirmatively that the alleged exemption has been clearly allowed by law.

Addison v. State

188 Md. App. 165 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Oct 2, 2009

The State then moved to have Sassoon qualified as an expert in the field of domestic violence. … As a continuing objection is only effective as to questions clearly within the scope, the persistent objections to the testimony of Sassoon are clearly sepa *177 rate general objections, allowing for any ground to be pursued

McLaughlin-Cox v. Maryland Parole Commission

200 Md. App. 115 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jul 11, 2011

Brewer, 408 U.S. 471, 482 , 92 S.Ct. 2593 , 33 L.Ed.2d 484 (1972), in which the Supreme Court held that a parolee has a “qualified” liberty interest in parole that cannot be deprived without due process. … The time has come to return to the due process principles we believe were correctly established and applied in Wolff [v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539 , 94 S.Ct. 2963 , 41 L.Ed.2d 935 (U.S.1974) ] and Meachum [v.

Cook v. State

84 Md. App. 122 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Aug 30, 1990

The evidence adduced at trial was clearly sufficient to sustain appellants’ convictions on all counts. … They argue *134 that their mere presence at the scene is not sufficient to establish their constructive possession over the cocaine.

CSX Transportation, Inc. v. Haischer

151 Md. App. 147 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Apr 30, 2003

In our view the likelihood of misuse by the jury clearly outweighs the value of this evidence. … cannot be made a springboard from which a plaintiff may go forward with affirmative evidence ... of financial need and then seek immunity from cross-examination regarding it.

Williams v. State

131 Md. App. 1 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Mar 9, 2000

One of the earliest Maryland decisions to establish this foreclosure principle was Peisner v. … The evidence was abundant to establish Maurice Williams as the first-degree perpetrator of the crimes.

Naughton v. Bankier

114 Md. App. 641 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Feb 28, 1997

Lemp had ever handled or used the Winger, or that he was qualified to comment as to its design and production. Dr. … It is well established that future damages must be established by, at least, reasonable probability, Bartholomee v. Casey, 103 Md.App. 34 , 651 A.2d 908 , cert. denied, 338 Md. 557 , 659 A.2d 1293 (1994); Davidson v.

Walters v. State

8 Md. App. 583 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jan 28, 1970

The lower court found as a fact that what the officer saw appellant hand Logan or place in the back of Logan’s belt was the handkerchief containing the narcotics and we cannot say it was clearly wrong in this judgment on … Thus he did not qualify as a “person aggrieved by an unlawful search and seizure.”

Fraidin v. State

85 Md. App. 231 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jan 11, 1991

In support of this, Fraidin, in his brief, makes the bold statement: “It has been established since Ivrey v. … Cardin’s opening statement that the issue that was discussed prior has been clearly opened.

Walton v. Davy

86 Md. App. 275 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Mar 1, 1991

The court determined that appellant clearly did not establish fraud and made the following findings: 1. … Clearly, Walter W.

Fitzwater v. State

57 Md. App. 274 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jan 12, 1984

The State, on the other hand, contends that since Foley was a qualified operator of the machine the court properly permitted Foley’s testimony as to calibration and speed detected by the radar. … Applying the above principles, we find the court was not clearly erroneous and did not abuse its discretion in admitting Foley’s testimony.

Crystal v. Midatlantic Cardiovascular Associates, P.A.

227 Md. App. 213 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Mar 29, 2016

Fischer, Crystal’s “qualified expert.” In both the certificate of qualified expert and the report, accompanying that certificate, which were filed with Crystal’s claim, Dr. Fischer opined that Dr. … Fischer’s testimony clearly stops short of crossing the threshold from negligence into gross negligence, let alone fraud. First, Dr.