Case law

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

Zitomer v. Slate

21 Md. App. 709 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jun 27, 1974

. *715 The cases frequently recognize a distinction, however, between “pure statutes of limitation” and a limitation qualifying a statutory right in which time is made an integral part of the right created, so that there … These cases construing Art. 93, § 112 are clearly apposite to the present case.

Wilson v. State

132 Md. App. 510 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jun 7, 2000

Jennifer Reynolds, Director of the Identity Laboratory at Cellmark, who was qualified as an expert in the application of forensic DNA testing. Dr. … Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 , 98 S.Ct. 2674 , 57 L.Ed.2d 667 (1978), to establish that the application for the warrant was tainted, or 3) an actual Franks hearing itself. In this case, it clearly is not the latter.

Schochet v. State

75 Md. App. 314 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · May 19, 1988

There is, in other words, a lack of controlling precedent in this State clearly mandating one result or the other in this case. … But it has recognized that certain aspects of sexual relations between men and women are immune from governmental intrusion, absent some compelling, rational basis for *360 the intrusion.

Ashford v. State

147 Md. App. 1 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Sep 12, 2002

Miranda was clearly suffering disfavored status. Indeed, in Dickerson v. … The burden is not on the State to establish the presence of third persons; it is on the appellant to establish their absence.

Mason v. State

18 Md. App. 130 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jun 8, 1973

Wedge acknowledged that he faced no charges because he was promised immunity in exchange for his testimony. 3 Wedge also testified that he observed that Mason was armed with a .45 caliber pistol and Hamilton had a .38 caliber … [T]he trial judge clearly should not have given instructions regarding that count. However, no objection to the instructions was interposed by appellant as required by Md.

Wantland v. State

45 Md. App. 527 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · May 9, 1980

It was not incumbent upon the police to instruct Wantland, even if they were qualified to do so, as to the effect of an oral statement vis-a-vis one that is written. … To secure a reversal based on an opening statement the accused is usually required to establish bad faith on the part of the prosecutor in the statement of what the prosecutor expects to prove or establish substantial prejudice

Rite Aid Corp. v. Levy-Gray

162 Md. App. 673 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jun 30, 2005

It would be a dangerous principle to establish that a druggist cannot safely fill a prescription merely because it is out of the ordinary. … would have been more qualified.

Hansford v. District of Columbia

84 Md. App. 301 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Sep 5, 1990

III. granted appellee’s motion to dismiss insofar as it found sovereign immunity barred liability in Maryland courts based on appellee’s negligent operation in Maryland of a maximum security prison for violent juvenile delinquents … Cornman, 398 U.S. 419, 421-22 , 90 S.Ct. 1752, 1754-55 , 26 L.Ed.2d 370 (1970), clearly rejected “the fiction of a state within a state,” and held that individuals living on the grounds of National Institutes of Health (N.I.H

Insurance Commissioner v. CareFirst of Maryland, Inc.

149 Md. App. 446 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Feb 10, 2003

Once an insurer qualifies for the SAAC differential, the 4% discount applies, not only when health services are provided to those patients purchasing the qualified insurer’s SAAC product, but also when services are provided … This ratio can only be established after determining expense requirements and what constitutes a reasonable profit.

Byrum v. Maryott

26 Md. App. 130 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · May 6, 1975

The second is where the injury by its very nature establishes permanency (loss of limb; wrongful death). Cluster v. Upton, 165 Md. 566, 569 , 168 A. 882 (1933). … Can I qualify this in reference to the arthritis? “The Court: I think you had better answer his question.

Son v. Margolius, Mallios, Davis, Rider & Tomar

114 Md. App. 190 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Feb 26, 1997

Son in the first count of his Complaint be clearly stated. … We need not, and therefore do not, decide the number and quality of the relationships that qualify under the Act. We merely decide that whatever association Ms.

Lewin Realty III, Inc. v. Brooks

138 Md. App. 244 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Apr 26, 2001

The Court commented that the question posed to the claims manager “was clearly improper by referring to inadmissible prior ‘bad acts.’ ” 330 Md. at 20 , 622 A.2d 103 . … On appeal, the defendant argued that the witness should not have been qualified as such. The Court of Appeals held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in qualifying the witness as an expert.

Matter of Md. Off. of People's Counsel

Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Dec 20, 2023

A review of the complaint reveals that it clearly alleged violations of the PUA. … Although the complaint clearly asserted violations of the PUA, the Commission’s Order did not refer to the PUA.

Lee v. State

193 Md. App. 45 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · May 28, 2010

The fact that she may have been qualified to give the opinion does not resolve the issue of the discovery violation, however. *72 Immediately thereafter, the prosecutor proceeded to lay the foundation to qualify Dr. … In the instant case, defense counsel’s argument that Comploier would have stabbed the appellant had he not defended himself clearly was permissible.

Horning v. Hardy

36 Md. App. 419 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jun 10, 1977

In the case here being considered, there is one further *429 complicating factor: the assertion of a qualified privilege by the appellees. … Rule 1086 requires that in a case tried below without a jury that we not set aside a judgment of the lower court on the evidence unless we find the trial court clearly erroneous.

Matter of Md. Off. of People's Counsel

Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Dec 22, 2023

A review of the complaint reveals that it clearly alleged violations of the PUA. … Although the complaint clearly asserted violations of the PUA, the Commission’s Order did not refer to the PUA.

Town of New Market v. Milrey, Inc.-FDI Partnership

90 Md. App. 528 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Feb 28, 1992

The statute deferred to procedures for borrowing money as established in municipal charters when those procedures differed from those provided in the statute. … The facts here are clearly distinguishable. JUDGMENT AFFIRMED. COSTS TO BE PAID BY APPELLANT.

James G. Davis Construction Corp. v. Erie Insurance Exchange

226 Md. App. 25 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Oct 28, 2015

The Policy provides that “[t]he word ‘insured’ means any person or organization qualifying as such under Section II - Who Is An Insured.” … Rather, “the terms of an insurance contract are to be interpreted utilizing well-established principles that guide the interpretation of contracts generally.” Kendall v. Nationwide Ins.

Bruno v. State

93 Md. App. 501 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Oct 1, 1992

Rizzo was the critical evidence establishing that what Micheltree told the pre-trial services officer was untrue or misleading. Ms. … This was clearly the intent of the parties, although from the actual recitation of what occurred, it appears that there was an agreement as to ultimate fact.