Case law

Scott v. State

310 Md. 277 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Aug 5, 1987

“Because the State is attempting to establish that death is the appropriate punishment, the State bears the burden of establishing that the aggravating circumstances which you find outweigh the mitigating circumstances. … We think the trial judge was clearly right. The subject of Dr.

Goldstein v. Chestnut Ridge Volunteer Fire Co.

984 F. Supp. 367 · District Court, D. Maryland · Nov 13, 1997

Second, in 1881 the Baltimore County Fire Department was established. … Finally, in the years after its establishment the County Fire Department rapidly grew.

Rhoderick v. Roy Hansen Mortgage Co.

260 Md. 129 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Dec 14, 1970

The essence of our contract was that you would put up certain collateral, properly qualified as to validity and receive a loan for same on terms and conditions agreed to by you. *133 “At this point Mr. … “The plaintiff has produced sufficient testimony to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that Rhoderick did in fact negotiate a loan with Hansen and that Hansen did obtain a commitment for the 1 loan and thereby earned

Pfeaff v. Jones

50 Md. 263 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jan 29, 1879

Stonestreet, 1 Md., 158 , this Court did not regard the rule as inexorable and of universal application, but seemed to intimate that under circumstances in which equity and justice demanded it, the rule even as above qualified … Canby, 29 Md., 211 , in which a subsequent judgment creditor sought to obtain priority over a previous mortgage not recorded in time, it was held, that it being clearly established that the complainants Johnston, when they

Mayor City Coun., Cumberland v. Turney

177 Md. 297 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Nov 29, 1939

Immunity from liability is sometimes placed on the ground that municipalities are in the exercise of legislative power in the adoption of plans for local improvements, and sometimes on the ground that the exercise of the … a specific act of negligence, to establish the inherent danger in a particular condition or object, or to establish any collateral issue.” 22 C.

Baum v. State

163 Md. 153 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jun 21, 1932

We are of the opinion that the provisions of chapter 194 do not apply to these defendants, for the reason that the immunity from illegal search and seizure is a privilege personal to those whose rights thereunder have been … Under such circumstances, we are clearly of the opinion that it was not reversible error. 'There being no reversible error in any of the rulings excepted to, the judgment will, be affirmed. Judgment affirmed, with costs.

Rochkind v. Stevenson

471 Md. 1 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Aug 28, 2020

This Court has articulated two circumstances where a departure from the doctrine of stare decisis is permissible: “(1) when the prior decision is clearly wrong and contrary to established principles[;] or (2) when the … Clearly, neither of the circumstances that would warrant a departure from the doctrine of stare decisis—a prior decision is clearly wrong and contrary to established principles or existing precedent has been superseded

Callaway v. Forest Park Highlands Co.

113 Md. 1 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Mar 31, 1910

The deed purports to convey a lot of ground and a right of way, clearly indicating that, in the mind of the grantors, they did not mean the same thing. … We are not to be understood as in any respect qualifying the doctrine announced in Nicolai’s Case.

Molinaro v. Watkins-Johnson CEI Division

359 F. Supp. 467 · District Court, D. Maryland · Apr 9, 1973

There are important policy reasons for such a procedure, and they have been enumerated clearly by the United States Supreme Court. … This is not a case of a mere declared immunity of the government from liability for its own torts.

Teeter v. State

65 Md. App. 105 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Nov 7, 1985

The evidence was clearly sufficient to support appellant’s conviction under Art. 27, § 111. II. … He argues that the affidavit was clearly *113 hearsay and not within any recognized exception to the hearsay rule.

Monfred v. State

226 Md. 312 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Aug 9, 1961

set of semi-nude photographs portraying a sequential “striptease.” 2 The magazines and photographs were openly displayed and offered for sale without overcharge along with other types of magazines on newsstands or in the establishments … But the real contention is—inasmuch as it is claimed that the suspect material is not “hard-core pornography”—that the appellants were immune from prosecution under the statute.

Young

District Court, D. Maryland · Sep 2, 2026

‘[t]he similarity between comparators . . . must be clearly established in order to be meaningful.’” Swaso v. Onslow Cnty. Bd. of Educ., 698 F. … So, to establish that she is a “qualified individual,” a plaintiff asserting a claim for discriminatory termination under the ADA must plead that “(a) [she] was disabled when discharged and (b) [she] was qualified

Truitt v. Board of Public Works

243 Md. 375 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jul 22, 1966

There the laws were clearly religious in origin, but, the Court held, had become secular in purpose, to provide a uniform day of rest for all citizens. Mr. … Here, in our opinion, far more clearly than in Everson , the purpose and primary effect of the *407 legislation are for the public welfare and not to promote or aid religion.

Board of Education v. Spradlin

161 Md. App. 155 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jan 31, 2005

Bark, 79 Md.App. at 74 , 555 A.2d 542 , however, both the practice and its label are now firmly established. … Why the Qualifier “Essentially”?

Standage v. Braithwaite

District Court, D. Maryland · Mar 18, 2021

But, the APA’s waiver of sovereign immunity is qualified. … Other circuits have endorsed the proposition that § 702 waives sovereign immunity for qualifying non-APA claims. See Michigan v. U.S.

State of Maryland Central Collection Unit v. Jordan

405 Md. 420 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jul 24, 2008

(c) Defense of sovereign immunity. … Clearly, 17-106 is a regulatory statute, as defined by its purpose, that being that “enforcement of this State’s compulsory insurance laws is important to the well-being and safety of the citizens of this State” and “the

Madden v. Mercantile-Safe Deposit & Trust Co.

27 Md. App. 17 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jun 12, 1975

established, could be binding on the persons entitled to the remainder.” … Critzer, 230 Md. 286 , 186 A. 2d 586 (1962), the Court of Appeals reviewed various methods for qualifying an expert witness.

Attorney Grievance Commission v. Merkle

440 Md. 609 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Nov 24, 2014

“The rationale behind the clearly erroneous standard is settled. … In the present case, Bar Counsel did not establish that Mr. Merkle and Ms. Coates had a sexual relationship or that Mr. Merkle attempted to establish one.

Walker v. State

107 Md. App. 502 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Dec 28, 1995

State, 333 Md. 547 , 636 A.2d 463 (1994), wherein the Court of Appeals discussed the criteria used to establish that a hearsay statement possessed sufficient “indicia of reliability” 13 to qualify under the penal interest … A proponent will not satisfy the rule by showing generalized indicia of trustworthiness but must qualify under one of the clearly identifiable and classically recognized exceptions. Id. at 8-9 , 536 A.2d 666 .

Payne v. State

243 Md. App. 465 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Dec 18, 2019

The issue before us is whether Payne established to the suppression court that he was in custody at the time of the statement given to police. … The use of “a” throughout this statute qualified each reference in the singular.