Case law

Moosavi v. State

118 Md. App. 683 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jan 7, 1998

He seemed to believe that the Chevy Chase Bank was located in Frederick but was clearly unsure. … An issue does not qualify for appellate consideration simply because of its close association with other issues that are properly before the Court. In DeGroft v.

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.

Jacques v. First National Bank

62 Md. App. 54 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jun 28, 1985

They were first told that the maximum loan for which they qualified was $74,000, an amount Mr. Jacques indicated he would accept [1] and subsequently, that the amount was $41,400. … When the Jacques tendered, and the bank accepted, the mortgage loan application, a business relationship was established. [6] Acceptance of the application for processing clearly indicated the bank's willingness to "deal"

Rendelman v. State

73 Md. App. 329 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Mar 30, 1988

The three judge panel was without jurisdiction to render a decision following the termination of the thirty day period established by statute. V. … The right of appeal from the order of a sentence review panel is clearly not within the contemplation of Courts Art. § 12-301.

SUPERVISOR OF ASSESSMENTS OF MONTGOMERY CTY. v. Asbury Methodist Home, Inc.

72 Md. App. 352 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Sep 2, 1987

CONCLUSION Asbury’s provision of apartment housing facilities with a life-care commitment, relieving the fear of exhausted life’s savings, is clearly a charitable use of property. … McRory, who qualified as an expert on housing in Montgomery County, opined that Asbury was a unique and ingenious way of providing housing for the elderly.

Logan v. Dietz

Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Aug 2, 2023

Clearly, RP § 11B-116 itself only authorizes a “homeowners association”—not individual unit owners—to amend a governing document with 60% approval. … As we have discussed, for Dietz and the other homeowners to rely on § 11B-116 of the Act, there had to be a qualifying homeowners association, which in turn required a qualifying declaration.

Manuel v. State

85 Md. App. 1 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Nov 14, 1990

The wiretaps and the staged heroin transaction clearly establish the connection between and the roles of the appellants in the drug ring. … This evidence was clearly sufficient to support Ohakwe’s conviction for conspiracy to distribute heroin.

Antwerpen v. Baltimore County

163 Md. App. 194 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jul 7, 2005

Not only does the use designated in Section 233.2 not utilize either the words “new” or “used,” but the uses described in Sections 233.2 and 236.4 above are clearly different. … Even if the special exception was never “declared” invalid, it was never a final valid special exception, which would qualify respondent to begin to vest rights in a zoning approval.

Caccamise v. Caccamise

130 Md. App. 505 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Mar 3, 2000

We are unable to conclude that the court’s decision was clearly erroneous. … Herrick involved the distribution of a profit sharing trust established by the husband.

Shallow Run Ltd. Partnership v. State Highway Administration

113 Md. App. 156 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Dec 27, 1996

Gray, The Law of Torts § 27.2, at 136 (2d ed.1986) (if the source of a landowner’s immunity is that he is not charged with knowledge of a trespasser’s presence, then the same immunity should be applied to the holder of an … It established the then present location of the easement and reserved to the State the right to reasonable modification, i.e., relocation.

Morten v. State

Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Sep 4, 2019

Clearly, she was giving precise directions, not responding to emotional shock. … THE COURT: Well, no, she’s not qualified. She can’t give an expert opinion on that.

Thompson v. State

62 Md. App. 190 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Mar 11, 1985

The Fourth Amendment interest there must be independently established. … Even if it were not deemed a counterpart “original,” as discussed above, it would still qualify as a “duplicate.”

Wheeler v. State

233 Md. App. 265 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jul 3, 2017

A State chemist, who was qualified as an expert in the chemical analysis and identification of heroin, testified that she received a package with the same complaint number from the evidence control unit (ECU). … It was established that Detective Trojan was the packaging/submitting officer that day.

Dehn v. Edgecombe

152 Md. App. 657 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Sep 4, 2003

Edgecombe was not qualified to perform a vasectomy, he referred Mr. Dehn to a surgeon, Dr. Samuel F. Mazella, who ultimately performed the vasectomy on October 24, 1995. … In this case [the parent-child immunity] serves to bar an action by the child while living against the father.

McKemy v. Baltimore County

39 Md. App. 257 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Apr 14, 1978

Because of its inappropriate reliance on that test, the Board failed to come clearly and completely to grips with these more relevant criteria. … McKemy contends that, if his use of the lots in question qualifies, under Bill No. 18-76, as a “trucking facility”, the county “must follow the restrictions set forth therein.”

Abrams v. State

176 Md. App. 600 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Sep 10, 2007

That Judge Perry clearly explained the nature of the charge of uttering to the defendant. … In response, the State argues that under Maryland law, there is no particular litany required to establish a voluntary and intelligent plea.

Abner v. Branch Banking & Trust Co.

180 Md. App. 685 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jul 3, 2008

The subcontractor appealed, arguing that § 12-303(1) was applicable, in that the right of possession is ultimately determined if a mechanic’s lien is *692 established and the property is sold at foreclosure. … Clearly, [the subcontractor] has no present right to possession and whether any such right may ultimately exist is purely speculative.

Lowery v. Lowery

113 Md. App. 423 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jan 30, 1997

which portion of the settlement at issue qualified as marital property. … Lowery failed to meet her burden of proof as to which portion of the settlement qualified as marital property.

In Re Adoption No. 09598 in the Circuit Court for Prince George's County

77 Md. App. 511 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jan 4, 1989

During a five-day trial, in addition to establishing Mr. … Evidence further established that Brandon has strong emotional ties with the T.’s.

White v. State

248 Md. App. 67 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Oct 1, 2020

Chimel established unequivocally the now universally established geography—the range in space—of the Search Incident to Lawful Arrest. Feaster, 206 Md.App. 231, described Chimel’s mandate. … DID THE STATE QUALIFY FOR THE INEVITABLE DISCOVERY EXEMPTION FROM THE SANCTION OF THE EXCLUSIONARY RULE? No.