Case law

Clarke v. Union Trust Co. of D.C.

192 Md. 127 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jan 14, 1949

be established by Shriners Hospitals for Crippled Children or any subsidiary or affiliated corporation thereof.” … Before a taxpayer can obtain an exemption, it is upon him to show affirmatively that the alleged exemption has been clearly allowed by law.

Wright v. State

72 Md. App. 215 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jul 15, 1987

We are not persuaded that the trial court was clearly wrong. *219 3. … Clearly, the victim did not react to the incident as a person intimidated by the likelihood of great bodily harm.

Hagez v. State

110 Md. App. 194 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · May 30, 1996

Hagez immunity from testifying, pursuant to Md.Code, Courts and Judicial Proceedings Art. … Rather, it appears to pertain to anyone who qualifies as a "spouse,” without regard to the motive for the marriage.

Shannon v. Fusco

438 Md. 24 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Apr 24, 2014

Trovato was qualified to opine about Dr. … As these cases clearly demonstrate, the package insert’s warnings are relevant evidence as to whether the treating physician’s conduct fell below the standard of care in prescribing or administering medication, an issue of

Hall v. State

225 Md. App. 72 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Sep 30, 2015

Standard of Review It is well-established that “[t]rial judges are vested with broad discretion in sentencing.” Ridenour v. State, 142 Md. App. 1, 11 (2001). … Clearly appellant’s act of breaking and entering Ms. Goodenough’s home directly resulted in her front door and door frame being damaged.

Allen v. State

318 Md. 166 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Dec 26, 1989

Antonio’s counsel disputed that the State had the authority to confer immunity. The court withheld its ruling. … The concept of complicity suggests that the witness is clearly implicated in the defendant’s alleged criminal activities, so as to establish the offense charged. Id. at 308 , 206 A.2d at 252 .

Stevenson v. State

222 Md. App. 118 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Apr 2, 2015

wide latitude in determining whether expert testimony is sufficiently reliable to be admitted into evidence, and his sound discretion will not be disturbed on appeal unless the decision to admit the expert testimony was clearly … There was, as the State contends, strong circumstantial evidence establishing Mr. Stevenson’s motive to murder Ms. Sipayboun. The State presented evidence that Mr.

In Re Yve S.

373 Md. 551 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Mar 27, 2003

This presumption also is a well established principle of Maryland law. … Rose is not qualified to do that, as she was not qualified as a psychiatrist, psychologist, or licensed clinical social worker. The testimony was improper and should have *616 been stricken.

Allen v. State

183 Md. 603 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Nov 15, 1944

The principle has always been liberally construed in order to give the fullest effect to this immunity, and the protection thus afforded adheres to the accused throughout the trial. Blum v. … to compelling the defendant to put her foot in the track and her conduct in so doing, the Court reasoned that “if the conformity had been perfect, that fact would have appeared from the enforced conduct of the defendant, clearly

Prince v. State

216 Md. App. 178 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Feb 26, 2014

Did the trial court clearly abuse its discretion when it denied Defense Counsel’s motion for a continuance to secure critical evidence regarding Mr. … And—most damning of all—the misfire was not the shot that counted or that established Mr. Prince’s intent. Ms. Garbe specifically testified that she saw Mr.

Pace v. State

195 Md. App. 32 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Sep 29, 2010

The appellants further argued that “the extensive federal and state statutory and regulatory regime governing the administration of school lunch programs here, clearly establishes the State’s special duty or relationship … Further, the State asserts the doctrine of sovereign immunity.

Wilson v. State

195 Md. App. 647 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Oct 28, 2010

And he left, clearly, very shortly— left his home, clearly, very shortly after he arrived. He certainly didn’t wait to give the three a chance to vacate the area. … As examples of what might qualify as a substantial battery, in Dorsey v.

Secretary, Department of Public Safety & Correctional Services v. Demby

390 Md. 580 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jan 17, 2006

Special Projects Credit. (1) The Commissioner, with the approval of the Secretary and based on the Division’s current policy and procedure, may establish a list of assignments that qualify for special projects credit that … The DOC established double celling as a special project under the authority of section 3-707.

Brice v. State

71 Md. App. 563 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jun 10, 1987

In this case, the test result showing a blood alcohol content of 0.24 per cent 1) was admissible and 2) established a prima facie case that the appellant was intoxicated. … The finding of Judge Truitt that the apprehension occurred at 4:16 p.m. 1) was not clearly erroneous as a matter of fact and 2) was correct as a matter of law.

Pennsylvania National Mutual Casualty Insurace v. Gartelman

43 Md. App. 413 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Sep 13, 1979

A well-established rule of statutory construction was expressed by the Court of Appeals in State Insurance v. Nationwide, 241 Md. 108, 117 , 215 A.2d 749 (1966). … Gartelman is not a “qualified person.” Section 243H (a) (1) (i), however, permits an exclusion from *423 the benefits otherwise afforded a qualified person.

Jacobs v. Flynn

131 Md. App. 342 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Feb 25, 2000

Clearly, something short of an actual judgment will suffice.” Swigert v. Welk, 213 Md. 613, 619 , 133 A.2d 428 (1957). … Well surely, yes, because I know that the hospital would be very cautious in screening applicants for their employment and I was absolutely sure that all the employers there were qualified....

Evans v. Technologies Applications & Services Co.

875 F. Supp. 1115 · District Court, D. Maryland · Feb 9, 1995

For the reasons set forth more clearly below, the Court concludes that TAS’s motion for summary judgment as to all counts must be granted. … She reasons that these allegations are in the complaint to provide “further evidence of discrimination” and “to establish a pattern and/or practice of illegal discrimination, to evidence motive or intent or to establish pretext

Newton v. State

455 Md. 341 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Aug 23, 2017

Washington, I would hold that his performance was deficient because he consented to an arrangement that violated clearly established Maryland law, which had no potential to benefit his client. … Despite this clearly established law, Mr.

In re Zeno

850 F. Supp. 2d 546 · District Court, D. Maryland · Sep 12, 2011

Rule 701.1.a provides in pertinent part that “an attorney is qualified for admission to the Bar of this District if the attorney is, and continuously remains, a member in good standing of the highest court of any state (or … An attorney who is not a member of the Maryland Bar is not qualified for admission to the Bar of this District if the attorney maintains any law office in Maryland.”

Kastendike v. Baltimore Ass'n for Retarded Children, Inc.

267 Md. 389 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Dec 14, 1972

Thus, clearly, the action of the Gaddises in establishing their nursing home did not require assent. But, does this immunity from the requirement by the prior owners insulate their successors in interest? … For example, it is clearly established that hospital records are admissible into evidence under proper circumstances as a “business” record. See Snyder v.