Case law

Strawhorn v. Strawhorn

49 Md. App. 649 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Oct 7, 1981

[H]is agreement to aid in the support of his stepdaughter created nothing more than a debt for which the constitution affords him immunity from incarceration when he failed to discharge his contractual obligation. … Although appellee may be entitled to alimony, the record does not reveal, nor did the chancellor clearly indicate the basis upon which it was granted.

Troy v. Hart

116 Md. App. 468 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jun 3, 1997

Lettich was ultimately deemed qualified to receive those benefits on or about 1 January 1995. All medical expenses were paid by Medicare and Medicaid from that day forward. … The circuit court further addressed appellant’s claim of undue influence and found that appellant clearly did not establish that the free agency of Lettich was destroyed.

Comptroller of Treasury v. Martin G. Imbach, Inc.

101 Md. App. 138 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jul 1, 1994

Does the Equipment qualify for an Exemption? 1. Relevant Law In the instant case, we are required to determine the breadth of the sales and use tax exemption. … Rather, the rule mandates that in order to qualify under the exemption, the passengers or freight must cross state boundaries.

Proctor v. Holden

75 Md. App. 1 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Apr 14, 1988

Clearly the Holdens were not agreeing to obtain a mortgage with both a fixed rate and an adjusta *10 ble rate. … The evidence was insufficient as a matter of law to establish a fiduciary relationship between Freeman & Kagan and the Holdens. Mr.

Hall v. State

69 Md. App. 37 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Oct 21, 1986

Applying that definition to the facts in Dixon , the Court of Appeals concluded that the trial judge’s finding of an assault was not clearly erroneous since the service station attendant had reasonable grounds to feel apprehensive … If the elements of the crime as established by the foreign jurisdiction are suffi *62 ciently limited to those elements by which the crime is established in this State, it qualifies as a violent crime under our statute.

Jones v. State

68 Md. App. 162 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jul 7, 1986

Tyra stated clearly that she believed in God and knew that she should always tell the truth. … Indeed, in some instances this is the only way in which certain qualifying information can be elicited. Often questions that might appear to be simple and direct to an examiner may not be so to a child.

Mason v. State

Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jul 3, 2023

A proponent will not satisfy the rule by showing generalized indicia of trustworthiness but must qualify under one of the clearly identifiable and classically recognized exceptions. Id. … With respect to a self-defense instruction, the allocation of the burden of proof has also been firmly established. In State v.

Makell v. State

104 Md. App. 334 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Apr 4, 1995

Willy Ferguson’s statement satisfied all of the qualifying criteria. … It by no means established a sine qua non that some memory of events must remain if the out-of-court declarant is to be deemed available for cross-examination. Nance was not a single monolithic decision.

Seaboard Surety Co. v. Richard F. Kline, Inc.

91 Md. App. 236 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Apr 8, 1992

Clearly, there are disputes as to these facts; however, resolution of these disputes makes no difference in the determination of the legal question at issue here. … This is so because of certain established principles governing the law of joint ventures and partnerships which make these facts irrelevant and certain undisputed facts controlling.

Anderson v. State

227 Md. App. 329 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Mar 30, 2016

Eight particles of three-component gunshot residue were found on appellant’s right hand that, in the gunshot residue expert’s opinion, could only 6 Gbadyu, although subpoenaed and given immunity by the … And, when a defendant’s actions so clearly involve actions that are likely to bring about death, they speak for themselves with regard to willfulness. Pinkney, 151 Md. App. at 333.

Nance v. State

7 Md. App. 433 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Aug 8, 1969

II — SUFFICIENCY OF EVIDENCE The corpus delicti of the crimes were clearly established at trial by the testimony of the victims. … The immunity from giving testimony is one which the defendant may waive by offering himself as a witness, [citations omitted] ... He may be examined for the purpose of impeaching his credibility. Reagan v.

Bagwell v. Peninsula Regional Medical Center

106 Md. App. 470 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Sep 28, 1995

Given that Bagwell consented to appellees’ disclosure of Bagwell’s employment files to OCPD and WCDOC, appellant cannot establish a prima facie case. … The question of whether a defamatory communication enjoys a qualified privilege is a matter of law for the court. Exxon Corp. v.

Franklin v. State

6 Md. App. 572 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Apr 23, 1969

The Sergeant’s testimony clearly showed that he gave appellant all warnings required under Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U. … See also the Annotation appearing in 89 A.L.R.2d 478 , entitled “Impeachment of Accused as Witness by Use of Involuntary or Not Properly Qualified Confession.”

COLEMAN-FULLER v. State

192 Md. App. 577 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · May 27, 2010

Under our holding in Wilder , it was clearly error for the court to admit this evidence without expert testimony. On remand, this evidence may only be introduced through a witness qualified as an expert. … The State’s closing argument clearly referenced appellant’s April 19th statement, which, as we stated swpra, Part II, is inadmissible.

Stuples v. Baltimore City Police Department

119 Md. App. 221 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jan 13, 1998

As its subtitle clearly states, it deals only with “Summary Punishment or Emergency Suspension.” … It has long been established that no appeal will be from an order ... [that] is interlocutory only, and not a final judgment.”); Harkins v.

Craig v. State

76 Md. App. 250 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Dec 21, 1988

That suffices, for us, to establish the flexible quality of this right. … Based on the proffer made by the State, the court held that their testimony qualified under a number of exceptions to the rule generally excluding “other crimes” evidence, including that tending to establish a common scheme

Doneski v. Comptroller of Treasury

91 Md. App. 614 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · May 1, 1992

This tax clearly discriminates against the federal government and the people with whom it deals in violation of the principle announced in Davis v. … Neither ingenuity in calculation nor form of purge in state enactments can deprive the owner of the tax exemption established for the benefit of the United States. ...

Dept. Pub. Safety & Corr. Svcs v. Proctor

Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · May 12, 2026

Findings are not clearly erroneous if they are supported by any competent material evidence. Id. … Furthermore, the record serves a “prosecution purpose” under § 4-351(a)(2) because the State’s Attorney can use the recording to establish the actus reus in Mr. Allen’s criminal case.

Lin v. Cruz

247 Md. App. 606 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Sep 30, 2020

Lastly, “pursuant to the default order, liability against the corporation ha[d] been established[.]” … On appeal, we were asked to determine whether Francisco qualified as an employer under the FLSA and the MWPCL. Id. at 33.

Balt. City Police Dept. v. Esteppe

247 Md. App. 476 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Aug 27, 2020

Such a finding does not disadvantage either party and, if ultimately established, provides: (1) the tort plaintiff with a deep pocket from which to recover; and (2) immunity from the judgment for the tortfeasor employee, … Esteppe and, therefore, the Department maintained its defense of sovereign immunity to Mr. Esteppe’s claim. We will address that defense below in Part II.