Case law

Payne v. State

243 Md. App. 465 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Dec 18, 2019

The issue before us is whether Payne established to the suppression court that he was in custody at the time of the statement given to police. … The use of “a” throughout this statute qualified each reference in the singular.

State v. Weisbrod

159 Md. App. 488 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Oct 12, 2004

He never, therefore, qualified as the PERSON TESTED. The word “tested” is a past participle. … Darrikhuma asks us to extend the holdings of Sites and Brosan beyond the boundaries established in those cases.

Mitchell v. Baltimore Sun Co.

164 Md. App. 497 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Sep 29, 2005

Clearly, Keswick was a comprehensive care facility at the time Congressman Mitchell was a resident, and thus, subject to the provisions of the Act. … Although we recognize that the provisions of the Nursing Home Resident’s Bill of Rights apply to qualified care facilities *513 and their employees, we find the privacy provisions contained therein indicative of community

Berkson v. Berryman

63 Md. App. 134 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · May 13, 1985

Clearly they exist and Mr. … The effect of the default judgment is to establish Dr.

Board of Community College Trustees v. Adams

117 Md. App. 662 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jul 8, 1997

We hold that it clearly did. We explain. … This case was decided primarily on sovereign immunity grounds. The court, however, also addressed the merits in respect to several of the contentions made by Graney. .

Schultz v. State

106 Md. App. 145 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Aug 31, 1995

Being qualified to attribute the observed eye movements to a particular cause, however, is a far different matter.... … Sharp, 58 Md.App. 386, 396 , 473 A.2d 499 (1984), we noted: “Judicial notice of a fact is an acceptable substitute for formal proof of such fact, when formal proof is clearly unnecessary to enhance the accuracy of the fact-finding

Nelson v. State

5 Md. App. 109 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Sep 16, 1968

Nelson’s identity was clearly established by other witnesses and admitted by himself. The contention is frivolous. … Also, the mere presence of a person at the scene of a crime is not of itself sufficient to establish that that person was either a principal or an accessory to the crime or sufficient to establish any fact except that he

State v. Toelle

10 Md. App. 292 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Oct 7, 1970

And the record shows clearly that he was. On 1 August 1969 he appeared before the Grand Jury in response to a summons “to provide a handwriting exemplar.” … The immunity granted is in place of the right of a person to remain silent unless he chooses to speak in the unfettered exercise of his own will, and to suffer no penalty for such silence. See Malloy v.

DeReggi Construction Co. v. Mate

130 Md. App. 648 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Mar 7, 2000

On February 27, 1998, appellants filed a “Petition to Establish and Enforce Mechanics’ Lien” in the circuit court. … At some point, the construction company attempted to establish a mechanics’ lien on the homeowner’s property.

Thornton v. State

238 Md. App. 87 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jul 25, 2018

The circuit court here reasoned that, even if Thornton could establish the first proposition, he could not establish the second. C. … Neither case declares that waistband adjustments are somehow immunized from police scrutiny.

Maxima Corp. v. Cystic Fibrosis Foundation

81 Md. App. 602 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Feb 6, 1990

Maxima qualified this position in June, 1987, however, by a letter that stated inter alia, “Maxima offers the same buy-out proposal it made previously.” … Clearly, Maxima was initially to occupy T100 in September, 1986.

Julianna Ellett Giant Food, Inc.

66 Md. App. 695 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Mar 11, 1986

On the basis of the same factual allegations, Ellett charged Giant with conspiracy to deprive her of equal privileges and immunities under the law in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1985 (3). … This express limitation of a cause of action for defamation by the grant of a qualified privilege shows that the General Assembly knew how to restrict a civil action based on Art. 95A provisions.

Sobus v. Knisley

11 Md. App. 134 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Feb 3, 1971

After voir dire cross-examination the court ruled that the witness was qualified, and he proceeded to testify to his conclusions and findings about the accident. … This testimony of the officer, although it went in after objection, was clearly admissible. In Maryland Paper Products Co. v.

Kennedy v. State

21 Md. App. 234 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · May 20, 1974

The State 'responded: “There has long been a procedure established . . . defendants have come in where they deem it appropriate and move the Court — file petitions, motion for appropriate relief to waive the matter back to … Counsel for appellant may in. good faith have feared that to invoke by pretrial motion the qualifying clause of Art. 26, § 70-2 (d) (3) (“unless an order removing the.proceeding to the juvenile court has been filed pursuant

Brown v. State

90 Md. App. 220 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jan 31, 1992

For purposes of review by the trial court or on appeal, the continuing objection is effective only as to questions clearly within its scope. (Emphasis added.) … Criminal Law (2d ed. 1972), p. 659 observes: Even more clearly, he does not qualify for the voluntary manslaughter treatment where, because of intoxication, he easily loses his self-control; that is to say, he is to be judged

Fulp v. State

130 Md. App. 157 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Feb 3, 2000

But the overlap is not complete, because an overt act can qualify as an attempt and yet not rise to the level of an assault. … Lying in wait can be sufficient to establish attempt, but it would not constitute an assault.

Pohopek v. McElroy Truck Lines, Inc.

140 Md. App. 235 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Sep 5, 2001

There is “no particular formula for establishing ‘regular’ employment,” id., and we must evaluate each set of circumstances on a case-by-case basis. … Subsection (a)(1) of Section 9-203 does not qualify the phrase “in this State” with the word, “wholly,” nor with the word, “regularly,” nor with the word, “casually.”

Jabine v. Priola

45 Md. App. 218 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Apr 10, 1980

(Priolas), operate the Villa Romana Italian Restaurant No. 2, Inc., a dining establishment in the heart of the City of Annapolis. … Borinsky, supra, 239 Md. at 615-16 , 212 A.2d at 510 , the board’s attempted participation as a party is clearly without legal authority.

Schrader v. State

69 Md. App. 377 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Dec 4, 1986

Agent Holmes testified that an individual had to join the Flyer Program in order to *384 qualify for Morn’n Sun. … Once qualified for Morn’n Sun, the participant was to recruit other individuals to participate in that program.

Tanis v. Crocker

110 Md. App. 559 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jun 26, 1996

Rather, his child support payment was set below the level the child support guidelines would have established. … Hence, that decision was clearly wrong and an abuse of discretion.