Case law

State v. Thornton

73 Md. App. 247 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Dec 2, 1987

The defendant was then sworn and “qualified” by defense counsel. … SHEPERD: I believe he is qualified, Judge.

In Re William B.

73 Md. App. 68 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Nov 10, 1987

We will reverse the findings of fact of the trial judge only if those findings are clearly erroneous. Md. … However, it is also well-established that the primary consideration in a child-neglect case is the best interests and welfare ,pf the child. (Citation.)

Smith v. State

116 Md. App. 43 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jun 25, 1997

As a lay witness, appellant is qualified to offer opinion evidence, and testimony regarding reasonable inferences, if “rationally based on the perception of the witness.” Md. Rule 5-701(1). … His testimony clearly indicated that Ms. Harrison had wounds on her chest.

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.

Baltimore County v. Batza

67 Md. App. 282 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Apr 10, 1986

One that is clearly distinct is issue II—whether there is, in the first instance, a justiciable controversy. … Ebersberger rested on the premise established in Tanner v.

Kanfer v. Montgomery County Council

35 Md. App. 715 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · May 11, 1977

Kanfer and by a qualified land planner, Werner Kloetzli, Jr. … Clearly, the facts here do not present a case where rezoning would necessitate extension of sewage and other public facilities into altogether undeveloped areas.

Green v. Carr Lowery Glass Co., Inc.

170 Md. App. 502 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Sep 15, 2006

Again, some intent indicated that in order to get medical services, you have to be within the threshold established by the Act. … The language of § 9-505 suggests that it does not exist in a vacuum and that its terms are qualified through the definitions contained in other subsections within the Act.

Baltimore County v. Archway Motors, Inc.

35 Md. App. 158 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Mar 9, 1977

Friedberg, 4 the Court of Appeals said: 4 ‘A reply to an offer which alters in any manner the suggested method of performance is not a true acceptance of the offer, but in reality is a conditional or qualified acceptance, … The assent must, however, be clearly established and will not be inferred from doubtful or equivocal acts or language.’ ” (Citations omitted. Emphasis in original.)

Beck v. Mangels

100 Md. App. 144 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Apr 28, 1994

Baines was qualified as an expert in civil engineering. … Myers was qualified as an expert in the design and construction layout of roads.

Thoreson v. Shaffer

111 Md. App. 689 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Oct 30, 1996

Because of the nature of the security, the loan qualified as a “secondary mortgage loan” within the meaning of the Maryland Secondary Mortgage Loan Law. … Shaffer moved for partial summary judgment on her claim, arguing that the $11,160 and the $1,019 were clearly “interest, costs, or other charges with respect to the loan[ ]” under § 12-413.

Smith v. State

Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Nov 2, 2023

We hold that the trial court’s finding that there were sufficient corroborating circumstances establishing the trustworthiness of the Blake Interview was not clearly erroneous. … Accordingly, we hold that the trial court’s finding that there were sufficient corroborating circumstances establishing the trustworthiness of the Blake Interview was not clearly erroneous. b.

Kelly v. McCarrick

155 Md. App. 82 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Feb 5, 2004

The court did not address whether appellee Welch had statutory immunity from negligence liability. … Sports L.J. 93 (1997)(advo-cating immunity legislation and a liability scheme other than ordinary negligence for volunteer coaches); Jamie Brown, Legislators Strike Out: Volunteer Little League Coaches Should Not Be Immune

Alexander v. State

Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Oct 9, 2024

The qualifying test is not necessity but relevance. … It would qualify for double jeopardy protection pursuant to subsection 6-205(f) even if it did not necessarily qualify as an act of double jeopardy pursuant to Blockburger v.

Coates v. State

175 Md. App. 588 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Aug 30, 2007

I think all of the eases clearly state it is an opportunity to cross-examine at the time the statement is made. … The trial court found that these facts were sufficient to qualify the doctor as a “treating physician.”

Schear v. Motel Management Corp. of America

61 Md. App. 670 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Feb 14, 1985

It is clearly established, however, that police investigative reports are admissible under the business records exception only to the extent that information contained therein is within the personal observation of the investigating … The “rational probative value” of these print-outs in establishing the hotel’s negligence was questionable, particularly when there was no way of establishing how many of the “reported” offenses actually occurred.

Fearnow v. Chesapeake & Potomac Telephone Co.

104 Md. App. 1 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jan 11, 1995

Harpel, 493 F.2d 346, 349 (10th Cir.1974) (“The subject telephone conversation clearly qualified as a ‘wire communication’ as defined in 18 U.S.C. § 2510 (1).”); Hall, 488 F.2d at 197 (“when part of a communication is carried … “In the court’s view, if a plaintiff had established the elements of the tort action, he had necessarily established malice.” Id. at 226 . The jury awarded both compensatory and punitive damages in the fraud *62 action.

Oesby v. State

142 Md. App. 144 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jan 4, 2002

A fortio-ri, it was not clearly erroneous. E. … As we balance, therefore, the emphasis must be not on the noun “prejudice” but on the qualifying, and limiting, adjective “unfair.” It is the failure to appreciate this distinction that leads many analyses astray.

Johnson & Higgins of Pennsylvania, Inc. v. Hale Shipping Corp.

121 Md. App. 426 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · May 1, 1998

Did the Trial Court Abuse its Discretion in Qualifying Mr. Cave as an Expert Witness? Johnson & Higgins contends that the trial court abused its discretion in qualifying Mr. … Cave was clearly testifying as to the difficulty individuals have in understanding maritime insurance policies in particular that have an exception within them and then create an exception to that exception by the imposition

Kaplan v. Kaplan

248 Md. App. 358 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Nov 18, 2020

The court stated that “[t]here’s evidence to indicate that she’s qualified to earn significant income, and that she has, in the past, earned income in excess of what she’s claiming now.” … The court stated that “[t]here’s evidence to indicate that she’s qualified to earn significant income, and that she has, in the past, earned income in excess of what she’s claiming now.”