Case law

Nance v. State

7 Md. App. 433 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Aug 8, 1969

II — SUFFICIENCY OF EVIDENCE The corpus delicti of the crimes were clearly established at trial by the testimony of the victims. … The immunity from giving testimony is one which the defendant may waive by offering himself as a witness, [citations omitted] ... He may be examined for the purpose of impeaching his credibility. Reagan v.

Alexandria Scrap Corporation v. Hughes

391 F. Supp. 46 · District Court, D. Maryland · Mar 12, 1975

Vogt, 267 Md. supra at 675, 299 A.2d at 9 in which Judge Levine wrote: “Although the question of whether this enactment constituted a reasonable exercise of the police power is not before us, the testimony clearly established … Moreover, the provisions of the amendment in no way include any requirement that a Maryland-titled vehicle be abandoned within rather than without Maryland in order to qualify for a bounty.

Gent v. Kelbaugh

179 Md. 343 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Mar 5, 1941

Baptiste occurred prior to that of the testatrix, none of the other sisters would have immediately succeeded to any income from the trust estate; because the apparent intent of the testatrix was to establish a special trust … Under the clearly expressed terms of the ninth item of the will, it was possible for Mrs Baptiste, as the sole survivor of the five named sisters, to have likewise been the sole beneficiary of the indicated income for the

Strawhorn v. Strawhorn

49 Md. App. 649 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Oct 7, 1981

[H]is agreement to aid in the support of his stepdaughter created nothing more than a debt for which the constitution affords him immunity from incarceration when he failed to discharge his contractual obligation. … Although appellee may be entitled to alimony, the record does not reveal, nor did the chancellor clearly indicate the basis upon which it was granted.

Reeves v. Maryland Department of Transportation, Motor Vehicle Administration

District Court, D. Maryland · Jul 1, 2024

On April 20, Plaintiff mistakenly “allowed a customer who was not qualified for a license to enter the driving test room.” ECF 3, at 8 ¶ 54. … Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 100 (1984) (“[A] State’s waiver of sovereign immunity in its own courts is not a waiver of the Eleventh Amendment immunity in the federal courts.”).

Proctor v. Holden

75 Md. App. 1 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Apr 14, 1988

Clearly the Holdens were not agreeing to obtain a mortgage with both a fixed rate and an adjusta *10 ble rate. … The evidence was insufficient as a matter of law to establish a fiduciary relationship between Freeman & Kagan and the Holdens. Mr.

Mayor of Baltimore v. Dobler

140 Md. 634 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Mar 5, 1922

That the present grade of Clement Street where it bounds your orator’s lot was established on or about October 14th, 1909. … The light and air were shut off from the first floor of the premises, thereby rendering that portion of tlie dwelling damp and uninhabitable.” *646 The facts of that case clearly distinguish it from the case at bar, and it

United States v. Klissas

218 F. Supp. 880 · District Court, D. Maryland · Jun 19, 1963

In the signed statement, the figure “4” in October 24, 1957 is clearly a changed one, initialed by defendant. The original figure appears, although not certainly, to have been a “6”. … Column 5 of the arrival manifest, showing the D-l entries, would qualify even under this limitation.

Craig v. State

76 Md. App. 250 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Dec 21, 1988

That suffices, for us, to establish the flexible quality of this right. … Based on the proffer made by the State, the court held that their testimony qualified under a number of exceptions to the rule generally excluding “other crimes” evidence, including that tending to establish a common scheme

Harper v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore

359 F. Supp. 1187 · District Court, D. Maryland · May 2, 1973

Rather, plaintiffs ask the Court to hypothesize an adverse impact on the basis of statistics which show a clearly equal performance by both races. … Selection from this list of qualified applicants shall be made at random, excluding non-city residents unless the pool of qualified city residents is exhausted. 3.

Comptroller of Treasury v. Martin G. Imbach, Inc.

101 Md. App. 138 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jul 1, 1994

Does the Equipment qualify for an Exemption? 1. Relevant Law In the instant case, we are required to determine the breadth of the sales and use tax exemption. … Rather, the rule mandates that in order to qualify under the exemption, the passengers or freight must cross state boundaries.

TransCanada Pipelines Ltd. v. UsGen New England, Inc.

458 B.R. 195 · District Court, D. Maryland · Aug 30, 2011

Indeed, the record establishes that such a notion is factually unsupportable.” USGen, 429 B.R. at 487 . … Indeed, the record establishes that such a notion is factually unsupportable.” USGen, 429 B.R. at 487 .

Baltimore & Ohio Railroad v. County Commissioners

111 Md. 176 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jun 30, 1909

Chicago, supra, ‘qualifies and restrains within just limits the rigor of the rule which forbids recourse between wrongdoers.’ In the leading case of Lowell v. … The plaintiff’s third prayer is clearly objectionable.

Wylie v. Kirby

115 Md. 282 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Apr 4, 1911

It is an established doctrine that equity will grant relief from a forfeiture, where such a condition is provided to secure the payment of money, as in the case of a right of re-entry for the non-payment of rent at the time … The case at bar is clearly an appropriate one for the application of this equitable principle.

Attorney Grievance Commission v. Nnaka

428 Md. 87 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Aug 21, 2012

We accept a hearing judge’s findings of fact unless we determine that they are clearly erroneous. … The failure to respond to Bar Counsel clearly violates MLRPC 8.1(b). See, e.g., Att’y Griev. Comm’n v.

Vetter v. Am. Airlines, Inc.

299 F. Supp. 3d 714 · District Court, D. Maryland · Mar 5, 2018

Thus, it is undisputed that Vetter had a qualifying disability from May 3, 2012 until July 23, 2012. … However, her other claimed conditions did not qualify as disabilities under the Plan. Aug. 12, 2013 Ltr., AR 57.

Reisig v. Associated Jewish Charities

182 Md. 432 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Dec 15, 1943

In order to establish this status two thoroughly competent witnesses — one of them an expert on Palestine *436 law — were presented, and their testimony with the documentary evidence, clears the path of legal difficulties … It is clearly and expressly shown by the record in this case that The Hebrew University Association is such a legal entity, with a membership certain and definite, and which is functioning under a law (the “Law of Societies

Hall v. State

69 Md. App. 37 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Oct 21, 1986

Applying that definition to the facts in Dixon , the Court of Appeals concluded that the trial judge’s finding of an assault was not clearly erroneous since the service station attendant had reasonable grounds to feel apprehensive … If the elements of the crime as established by the foreign jurisdiction are suffi *62 ciently limited to those elements by which the crime is established in this State, it qualifies as a violent crime under our statute.

Abdel-Malak v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A.

748 F. Supp. 2d 505 · District Court, D. Maryland · Oct 20, 2010

To establish a prima facie case of negligent misrepresentation, the Plaintiff must establish the following: (1) the defendant, owing a duty of care to the plaintiff, negligently asserts a false statement; (2) the defendant … In fact, all disclosure regarding escrow payments which were given to Plaintiffs clearly stated that the information given was an estimate of monthly escrow payments.

Anderson v. State

227 Md. App. 329 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Mar 30, 2016

Eight particles of three-component gunshot residue were found on appellant’s right hand that, in the gunshot residue expert’s opinion, could only 6 Gbadyu, although subpoenaed and given immunity by the … And, when a defendant’s actions so clearly involve actions that are likely to bring about death, they speak for themselves with regard to willfulness. Pinkney, 151 Md. App. at 333.