Case law

Davis v. State

100 Md. App. 369 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jun 2, 1994

Sergeant Burton, due to his previous undercover narcotics work, also qualified as an expert in covert drug operations. … The record clearly demonstrates that Davis did not waive her right to counsel.

Hughes v. State

14 Md. App. 497 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Feb 16, 1972

If the Legislature feels it to be in the public interest to establish an age of consent for perverted sexual practice, as it has in *507 carnal knowledge of a female, it, of course, may do so. 9 But that § 554 does not “establish … His testimony clearly established that on 17 January 1971 while in Hughes’ apartment Hughes had requested him to get a book from Hughes’ car.

Seifert v. Gary

82 Md. App. 337 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Mar 30, 1990

The same 30-day provision is set forth in Md.Rule 8-202(a) relating to appeals to this Court, including appeals from an orphans’ court. *342 The 30-day period established by see. 12-502(a) in appeals to the circuit court, … does not qualify as a final judgment.

McCord v. State

15 Md. App. 63 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Mar 28, 1972

He made a qualified identification at the trial by testifying that the appellant “resembled” the other person who had run from the store but that he could not be certain of the identification. … The relevant evidence adduced in support of the State’s position that a trespass and asportation had been established showed that the appellant, in the presence of Mr. Blevis, had removed Mr.

State v. Jenkins

178 Md. App. 156 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Feb 6, 2008

Thus, while the “clearly erroneous” test demands some legally sufficient evidence for each and every element to be proved-to wit, that a prima facie case be established— Illinois v. … The Cl’s cooperation with the police was presumably in exchange for some sort of immunity, protection, or other favorable treatment.

Souffie v. State

50 Md. App. 547 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jan 11, 1982

We did so to establish clearly the doctrine of merger to be applied in this jurisdiction. We think it has now been clearly established and point out that we shall be more inclined to invoke Md. … Since the witness was testifying to highly inculpating disclosures appellant had made to him, the intimacy of their relationship was clearly relevant to establish the credibility of his testimony.

Harford County People's Counsel v. BEL AIR REALTY ASSOCIATES LIMITED PARTNERSHIP

148 Md. App. 244 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Dec 2, 2002

Nevertheless, being careful never to express ourselves more clearly than we are able to think, we will rehearse those facts which may be pertinent to our discussion. … Relying on an interpretation by the Illinois Department of Transportation to the effect that structures counted in establishing an “urban district” should include only those that have direct access to the highway, the homes

Garland v. State

29 Md. App. 27 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Nov 26, 1975

Wilbur) but was rather a clearly communicated and precisely literal statement to the effect that even proven murder is assumed to be only in the second degree until the State raises it to first degree, no harm would be done … In connection with manslaughter, there may be a homicide which would otherwise be murder, which is reduced to manslaughter by circumstances in mitigation or alleviation, as we call it; and this is where it is established

Baltimore City Police Department v. State

158 Md. App. 274 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Sep 2, 2004

Personnel records are included among those documentary materials that qualify as public records under the Act. Yet, personnel records are exempt from disclosure under SG § 10-616 of the Act. … IAD records of the sort at issue here, though made confidential as personnel records by the PIA, are not immune from disclosure to a defendant in a criminal trial. In Robinson v.

Noble v. Director, Patuxent Institution

32 Md. App. 192 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jun 30, 1976

A psychologist from Patuxent Institute was qualified as an expert and expressed his opinion that appellant was a defective delinquent within the meaning of Md. Code, Art. 31B, § 5. … After stating that one of the most firmly established principles enunciated by that Court is that an expert witness must predicate his opinion on premises of fact, Judge Prescott, in State, Use of Stickley v.

Offen v. County Council for Prince George's County

96 Md. App. 526 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · May 3, 1993

The Lucas court, however, clearly refused to allow regulations that destroy all economic use to be “newly legislated or decreed.” Id. at 197. … The right to private property was then perceived to be one of the incidents, privileges and immunities constituting individual rights that should be free from governmental interference.

Avey v. State

9 Md. App. 227 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Mar 31, 1970

of such qualified electors . . . .’ … No principle of constitutional construction is better established than that a court will not pass upon such question unless it is clearly presented by the record.

Grebow v. Client Protection Fund

Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jun 29, 2022

In his view, the Fund “clearly premised its denial of [the] [c]laim on the mistaken conclusion that [he] was complicit in Sniffen’s scheme.” … He remonstrates that the Trustees were “clearly biased” and demonstrated this by characterizing Mr. Grebow as a “co-conspirator” with Mr. McCloskey, despite Mr.

Xu v. Mayor & City Cncl. of Balt

Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Mar 30, 2022

Xu clearly wanted a jury trial and had requested one in a writing filed with the court. She did not, however, fully understand what she needed to do or say to get it.9 If Ms. … You haven’t been qualified as an appraiser. So you can’t testify to value.

Taylor v. State

Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jan 27, 2016

The Supreme Court, however, has clearly established that unsworn statements may be testimonial. … Just as the task of interpretation is not uniquely immune to human error, so too is it -35- not uniquely immune to human suggestion or manipulation.

State v. Harding

196 Md. App. 384 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Dec 10, 2010

I mean, all that Ofori says very clearly — and that’s why I asked Mr. … The facts had clearly established probable cause to arrest Schmerber for driving under the influence. A search incident would routinely follow.

Lennox v. Mull

89 Md. App. 555 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Dec 4, 1991

Clearly, the order in question does not constitute a final judgment. The case is very much alive in Allegany County. Nor, in our view, does it qualify as an appealable collateral order. … Unfortunately, that has been the result in this case because of this appeal, but we do not desire to establish a rule that will allow it to happen in the future.

Kulbicki v. State

207 Md. App. 412 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Sep 26, 2012

Q: Have you had an occasion in the past to qualify as an expert in firearms identification? … A: Yes, I have qualified in the [s]tate of Maryland, states of Virginia, Pennsylvania, Delaware and the Federal courts here in the United States.

Kramer v. Levitt

79 Md. App. 575 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jun 8, 1989

so much of it as is true and deny or qualify the remainder. … Thus, that older view is now regarded as “clearly untenable” and the privilege recognized under Rule 36. (Footnotes omitted.) 8 C. Wright & A.

Nicholson Air v. Board of County Commissioners of Allegany County

120 Md. App. 47 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Feb 27, 1998

Maryland Rule 2-501 establishes a two-part test for summary judgment. … They were necessary to re-establish to meet the regulations for carrying passengers.