Case law

Davis v. State

93 Md. App. 89 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Dec 22, 1992

Clearly, the omnibus answer does not supply the defendant the bonus data that might be gleaned from a pair of fragmented answers. … Under the circumstances, she qualifies as one peculiarly within his power to produce. Bruce v. State, 318 Md. 706, 729-731 , 569 A.2d 1254 (1990). We see no error.

Tucker v. University Specialty Hospital

166 Md. App. 50 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Dec 1, 2005

Although a jury is not permitted to apply a res ipsa analysis to infer negligence, unaided by expert testimony, in a complex case, the Court of Appeals made clear in Meda that a qualified expert may use inferential reasoning … The evidence clearly established that the hospital’s staff had access to the specific medication that caused Mrs.

Kane v. State

12 Md. App. 466 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jul 30, 1971

In short, there are established propositions lately specifically affirmed in Spinelli v. United States, 393 U. S. 410 , 419 and noted by us in Price v. State, 7 Md. … The evidence in this case was clearly sufficient to justify the inference that appellant did in fact control the narcotics found in the search.

Best v. Best

93 Md. App. 644 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Oct 7, 1992

Clearly, she is authorized to do so. … The decisions in Domingues and Kirchner reinforce the well-established principle that it is ultimately the chancellor’s decision which “significantly impacts upon the lives of the parents and children involved.”

Employees' Retirement System v. Brown

186 Md. App. 293 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jun 11, 2009

The ultimate conclusion of the Board was that because of the absence of established and official definitions and guidelines as to what constitutes “honorable and faithful” service, the decision of the Retirement System was … BG & E, 120 Md.App. 444, 466 , 707 A.2d 866 (1998), Judge Harrell clearly set out for this Court the mandatory dictates of the deference requirement.

In Re DANY G.

223 Md. App. 707 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jul 6, 2015

Which courts qualify as “juvenile courts” varies from state to state. Simbaina, 221 Md. App. at 453. … We review the trial court’s factual determinations under a clearly erroneous standard.

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.

Peterson v. State

15 Md. App. 478 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jun 29, 1972

The long procession of purchasers subsequently approaching that automobile and obtaining aluminum foil packets, characterized by Detective Snow as typically those used in the narcotics trade, clearly established the nature … For present purposes, however, the emphasis is upon the qualifying participial phrase “supported by the evidence.”

Ingersoll v. State

Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · May 31, 2024

“We accept the suppression court’s first-level findings unless they are shown to be clearly erroneous.” Brown v. State, 452 Md. 196, 208 (2017). … Norris was qualified by his experience to render such opinions.

Ellison v. State

65 Md. App. 321 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Mar 12, 1986

It is for the court to say whether his silence is justified, ... and to require him to answer if ‘it clearly appears to the court that he is mistaken.’ ... … C. *337 McCormick, Law of Evidence (1st ed. 1954), § 135, “Termination of Liability to Punishment: Immunity Statutes,” at 284, states: “If at the time of the claim of privilege, the liability of the witness to be convicted

Harrison v. Bill Cairns Pontiac of Marlow Heights, Inc.

77 Md. App. 41 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Nov 2, 1988

Even if Ford Motor Co. is entitled to summary judgment, Bill Cairns Pontiac of Marlow Heights, Inc. is clearly not. We disagree with the Harrisons and shall affirm. … For the purposes of reviewing the order of summary judgment, Haas will be presumed to be an expert qualified to render an opinion as to the cause of the fire.

Uninsured Employers' Fund v. Booker

13 Md. App. 591 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Dec 13, 1971

These cases clearly limit themselves to holding that the power of the Commission to modify or change its orders upon application made within three (now five) years next following the last payment of compensation [under present … Section 16 requires that the employer “secure compensation to his employees” by insuring the “payments of such compensation” in the State Accident Fund, or an insurance company, or by qualifying as a self-insurer.

Ley v. Forman

144 Md. App. 658 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jun 5, 2002

As a result, Maria must obtain her annual physical examinations and immunizations in Virginia. … It would be nonsensical to allow a child to remain in a special or private school after the parents’ separation only if he or she qualified for “special education” services.

Ben Porto & Son, LTC v. Montgomery Cnty.

Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jul 9, 2024

The first factor—the label given by the legislature—clearly weighs in favor of this conclusion. … The WQPC is not imposed upon Porto solely because it owns land but rather because of Porto’s use of that land, which is “only one of the many incidents which make up the bundle of rights, powers, privileges and immunities

Midler v. Shapiro

33 Md. App. 264 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Oct 7, 1976

Midler died in December, 1971, at age 78, Joseph, a member of the New York Bar, qualified as her personal representative and set about administrating his mother’s estate in accordance with her will dated 1963. … Our review of the evidence leads us to conclude that Judge Raine’s finding of fact was not clearly erroneous, Md. Rule 1086, if indeed he was erroneous at all.

Edwards v. State

Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Oct 31, 2025

In the case now before us, the appellant was clearly the aggressor. … The appellant, however, never established anything in that regard. He simply took prejudice for granted. He utterly failed to establish how he had been harmed in any respect.

Reynaldo Parado Rodriguez v. State

221 Md. App. 26 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jan 28, 2015

Clearly then, if appellant is not “required” to register under MSORA, he cannot be convicted of failing to register under CP 2010 § 11-721. … Clearly, the General Assembly had a legitimate regulatory purpose in enacting additional registration requirements for homeless registrants. See CP 2010 § 11-705(d).

Maryland Office of People's Counsel v. Maryland Public Service Commission

226 Md. App. 483 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jan 28, 2016

OPC’s second asserted grounds are nowhere near as clearly defined as the first. … -37- BGE had taken the position that each “asset class” qualified as a single “project.”

Costa v. State

58 Md. App. 474 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Apr 11, 1984

Evidence established that although the appellant failed to keep his appointment with Ms. … Discussion of Law It is important to note initially that when a wrongdoer has been given the opportunity to keep his freedom by being placed on probation, that personal privilege is by no means a blanket grant of immunity

Poole v. State

207 Md. App. 614 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Sep 26, 2012

There is no dispute that the State of Maryland qualifies as “a party that is not a natural person.” … Nothing in this conduct qualifies as solicitation to engage in sexual activity.