Case law

Unitas v. Temple

74 Md. App. 506 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Apr 5, 1988

This finding of fact, which clearly establishes the requisite degree of part performance, may not be tampered with unless clearly erroneous. Rule 1086. … Appellant, however, argues that “[t]he evidence does not establish clearly and convincingly the certain and unambiguous terms of the contract.”

Swain v. State

50 Md. App. 29 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Oct 9, 1981

Stone was not a qualified expert. We disagree with the appellant’s contention. Clearly the ultimate issue of the appellant’s mental condition was addressed by Dr. … We find no requirement in the law that an expert witness must only rely on the assistance of personnel who could be qualified as experts.

CSX Transportation, Inc. v. Miller

159 Md. App. 123 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Oct 1, 2004

Then, in challenging the sufficiency of the evidence to establish its FELA liability, CSX clearly confined the challenge to the single issue of causation. … Andres is a qualified ergonomist and that Dr. Widmeyer and Dr. Shepard are qualified orthopedists.

Comptroller of Treasury v. Ramsay, Scarlett & Co.

58 Md. App. 327 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Apr 6, 1984

There is no indication that either the Baltimore or the Louisiana branch depends on these connections; nor do they establish central management or control. … insurance and payroll functions Ramsay Scarlett handled indicate the presence of a substantial degree of operational unity, as does the importance of the corporate-wide profit-sharing plan, which otherwise might not have been a qualified

Board of County Commissioners of Washington County v. H. Manny Holtz, Inc.

60 Md. App. 133 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Oct 3, 1984

Commissioners Downey and Snook qualified their negative votes as opposition to the conditions imposed in this case, and not against the rezoning.” … Anne Arundel County, 181 Md. 428, 433-34 , 31 A.2d 179 (1943): “County commissioners are outgrowths of the old levy courts originally established by the Act of 1794, Chap. 53.

In re Ryan W.

207 Md. App. 698 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Nov 21, 2012

Does sovereign immunity bar the Juvenile Court from ordering the Department to establish and maintain a trust account for Ryan with funds from the State Treasury? … Sovereign Immunity Finally, the Department asserts that the remedy imposed by the Juvenile Court—creation of a constructive trust—is barred by sovereign immunity.

Corby v. McCarthy

154 Md. App. 446 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Dec 30, 2003

Somebody has to tell me how that works because it might be because of her disability she qualifies as the primary tenant that the child can live with. I mean, maybe that is how it works. … In Ex Parte Cohen, 763 So.2d 253, 256 (Ala.1999), for example, the applicable statute stated: “Guidelines for child support are hereby established for use in any action to establish or modify child support, whether temporary

Green v. Green

188 Md. App. 661 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Oct 30, 2009

Clearly, the desire of [the Millers] and [Father] are that the present—that the status quo continue in this matter. … She overlooks the qualifying phrase “as specified below,” and, to some extent, misunderstands the meaning of “physical custody.”

Livingstone v. Greater Washington Anesthesiology & Pain Consultants, P.C.

187 Md. App. 346 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Aug 27, 2009

On February 15, 2007, appellees filed a motion to dismiss on the grounds that the Certificates of Qualified Expert filed by Dr. Mann and Dr. … Judge Wilner explained: [W]ithout the affidavits, the plaintiff had failed to establish the proximate cause of Ms. Schaefer’s death and therefore had failed to establish their cause of action.

Joyce v. Joyce

10 Md. App. 516 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Dec 8, 1970

They were not clearly wrong when due regard is given to the opportunity of the Special Master to judge the credibility of the witnesses. … Property in chattels personal may either be an absolute or qualified property in possession or a property in action. For a full discussion of property in chattels personal see Id., Ch.

Johnson v. State

63 Md. App. 485 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jun 5, 1985

Despite the doubt concerning its justification, however, the exception is well established.” (Footnotes omitted.) In Moore v. … We find that the facts surrounding the victim’s statements to Officer Bowen clearly satisfied the requirements of the excited utterance exception.

Terrence Newman v. State

236 Md. App. 533 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Apr 4, 2018

What has been omitted, inadvertently or advertently, in such a formulation is the critical qualifier “unfair.” … Even in a case where the defendant might not be challenging the establishment of his identity, it would still be incumbent on the State to prove the identity of the defendant and to establish his criminal agency.

Great Coastal Express, Inc. v. Schruefer

34 Md. App. 706 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Feb 7, 1977

The only testimony remotely relating to that was about a prospective wage rate or productivity increases: “Q Now, what other factors did you take into consideration in attempting to establish his perspective earning loss? … The issue of prospective cost of living increases was not clearly raised below and certainly was not preserved for our review by an objection.

Dixon v. DeLance

84 Md. App. 441 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Oct 1, 1990

Nevertheless, the Court pointed out that evidentiary relevance was not the test to be applied to a statement to determine whether it qualified for the privilege: We quite agree however with Bramwell, J.A. in Seaman v. … The court was not clearly erroneous in so concluding and did not abuse its discretion in imposing the sanction on DeLance’s motion.

Long Green Valley Ass'n v. Bellevale Farms, Inc.

205 Md. App. 636 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jun 8, 2012

In some cases, the contract may clearly express an intended third party beneficiary, see Schlicht v. … Here, the merits question is whether the proposed creamery qualifies as a “farm related use” under § 2-513 of the Agriculture article.

Pinnacle Grp., LLC v. Kelly

235 Md. App. 436 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Feb 1, 2018

Section 5.3 of the Agreement clearly indicates an intent to integrate all previous negotiations. Ms. … The determination of whether a defendant qualifies as an employer presents a mixed question of law and fact.

Downer v. Baltimore Cnty

247 Md. App. 308 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Aug 26, 2020

Motor Vehicle Admin. 346 Md. 437, 447 (1997) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). 6  Baltimore County currently maintains detailed job descriptions that clearly … The term “paramedical” is then defined as: “Supplementary to or supporting the work of medically qualified personnel.” Id.

Wilson v. State

28 Md. App. 168 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Sep 9, 1975

The testimony of the appellant also clearly raised the issue of excusable homicide by misadventure or accident. … Thus, the alleged error was of omission and would not qualify as “plain error” under Rule 756 g. The issue is not before us. Brown v. State, supra.

Emmet v. Rickert

90 Md. App. 93 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jan 8, 1992

An act establishing the authority of the then Commissioner of Motor Vehicles to suspend licenses and registra *100 tions for nonpayment of judgments was originally enacted in 1931. See 1931 Md.Laws Ch. 498. … Since the judgment on which Emmet seeks MVA action does not qualify as such, we affirm the holding of the court below.

Westinghouse Electric Corp. v. Callahan

105 Md. App. 25 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · May 31, 1995

During the administrative hearings, the focus was establishment of the claimants’ date of separation. … The Board concluded: “The facts of this case do not establish that the claimants were paid wages as defined by Section 8-101(v).