Case law

United States v. Cates

686 F. Supp. 1185 · District Court, D. Maryland · May 23, 1988

As the Court has already indicated, a record was established, and each of the questions posed, excluding the request for his name and address, had potentially incriminating responses. … Moreover, if the mere production of documents is privileged, clearly, Cates was privileged from answering any of the questions concerning his income, assets or business.

Jefferson-El v. State

330 Md. 99 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Apr 6, 1993

Aubert, 118 N.H. 739 , 393 A.2d 567, 568 (1978), that judges are impartial participants in the legal process, whose duty to preside when qualified is as strong as their duty to refrain from presiding when not qualified. … It was clearly sufficient to justify a finding that the petitioner violated the condition of his probation prohibiting use of drugs during the probationary period.

Johnson v. United States

203 F. Supp. 2d 416 · District Court, D. Maryland · Jan 15, 2002

Again, Johnson reviewed and signed Koba’s corporate tax returns for the first quarter of 1995, which clearly indicated the extent of Koba’s growing, unpaid tax liability. … Moreover, as in the two prior quarters, Johnson again reviewed and signed Koba’s corporate tax return for the first quarter *425 of 1995, which clearly indicated a growing, unpaid tax deficiency.

Kanfer v. Montgomery County Council

35 Md. App. 715 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · May 11, 1977

Kanfer and by a qualified land planner, Werner Kloetzli, Jr. … Clearly, the facts here do not present a case where rezoning would necessitate extension of sewage and other public facilities into altogether undeveloped areas.

Johnson v. Baltimore Police Department

District Court, D. Maryland · Nov 16, 2020

One such situation is when the individual defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. Id. … However, to prevail on his Monell claim plaintiff still needs to prove that his constitutional rights were violated, regardless of whether the Officers are entitled to qualified immunity.

State v. Allewalt

308 Md. 89 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Nov 25, 1986

Spodak’s opinion to “establish” that a rape had occurred and indeed, to establish that fact “conclusively.” A slavish application of so rigid a requirement would eliminate most of the evidence at trials of all kinds. … The court then held: An examination of the literature clearly demonstrates that the so-called “rape trauma syndrome” is generally accepted to be a common reaction to sexual assault.

Mohan v. Norris

386 Md. 63 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Apr 4, 2005

The MPTC, however, also possesses the authority to grant a qualified individual a “probationary appointment” as a police officer for a period not to exceed one year “to enable the individual seeking permanent appointment … As discussed infra, a statute establishes a two year probationary period for police employees of the State Police.

Coates v. State

175 Md. App. 588 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Aug 30, 2007

I think all of the eases clearly state it is an opportunity to cross-examine at the time the statement is made. … The trial court found that these facts were sufficient to qualify the doctor as a “treating physician.”

Garcia v. Baltimore Police Department

District Court, D. Maryland · Apr 21, 2023

. ⁋ 26), and on three occasions, a promotion to Sergeant despite being qualified for the rank. (Id. ⁋⁋ 27-28). … Plaintiff further alleges that defendant manipulated the list of qualified applicants for both the Detective and Sergeant positions to avoid promoting plaintiff.

Thoreson v. Shaffer

111 Md. App. 689 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Oct 30, 1996

Because of the nature of the security, the loan qualified as a “secondary mortgage loan” within the meaning of the Maryland Secondary Mortgage Loan Law. … Shaffer moved for partial summary judgment on her claim, arguing that the $11,160 and the $1,019 were clearly “interest, costs, or other charges with respect to the loan[ ]” under § 12-413.

ASSOC. REALTY COMPANY v. Cadillac Jack Enterprises, Inc.

250 Md. 371 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jun 28, 1968

Edwards’ testimony falls short of establishing it. Even Adler’s testimony contains inconsistencies which impair its credibility. … We think Judge Carter’s comment just about hit the nail on the head and it follows, of course, that we cannot say he was clearly erroneous. Maryland Rule 886 (a). II.

Fearnow v. Chesapeake & Potomac Telephone Co.

104 Md. App. 1 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jan 11, 1995

Harpel, 493 F.2d 346, 349 (10th Cir.1974) (“The subject telephone conversation clearly qualified as a ‘wire communication’ as defined in 18 U.S.C. § 2510 (1).”); Hall, 488 F.2d at 197 (“when part of a communication is carried … “In the court’s view, if a plaintiff had established the elements of the tort action, he had necessarily established malice.” Id. at 226 . The jury awarded both compensatory and punitive damages in the fraud *62 action.

Peddicord v. Franklin

270 Md. 164 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Nov 1, 1973

The intention to convey to that line is clearly expressed in their respective deeds. … Stipulated Exhibit 1 was not accompanied by any testimony of a qualified surveyor and thus there was no testimony to support the point locations and bearings used in the survey.

Kucin v. Devan

251 B.R. 269 · District Court, D. Maryland · Jul 26, 2000

In January 1998, each of the Executives filed a motion, which relied on the language in the Bankruptcy Court’s April 11, 1994 preconversion order, seeking to establish Chapter 11 administrative status for their claims under … Here, the Executives’ claims are clearly based on prepetition agreements.

Rogers v. State

468 Md. 1 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Mar 31, 2020

At 9:29 hours, he called back and the voice [that] answered . . . was clearly a female this time, same phone number but clearly a woman, a young woman, and certainly not the same person he had spoken to earlier. … establishes the victim’s age.”

State v. Baltimore & Ohio Rail-road

6 Gill 363 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Dec 15, 1847

There is clearly nothing in this section which is in any manner imperative on the Company to declare dividends of their net profits. … The decision of this court, in I G. 8p J. 425, on the principle which it establishes, bears a strong affinity to this case.

State v. Williams

101 Md. 529 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jun 23, 1905

Alexander in his note on p. 13 of Alexander’s British Statutes, in which he says: “It was an established rule of the common law that where the King’s right and that of a private subject met at one and the same time, the King … The entry of these two judgments on the same day and while the property remained the property of the common debtor, clearly illustrates what is meant by the meeting of two conflicting rights at the same time.

Oesby v. State

142 Md. App. 144 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jan 4, 2002

A fortio-ri, it was not clearly erroneous. E. … As we balance, therefore, the emphasis must be not on the noun “prejudice” but on the qualifying, and limiting, adjective “unfair.” It is the failure to appreciate this distinction that leads many analyses astray.

Bainum v. Kalen

272 Md. 490 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Sep 30, 1974

a residence for political purposes in the State of Michigan and therefore has not complied with the residency requirements of the Maryland Constitution in order to qualify for the office he seeks.” … Where the evidence relating to voting and the evidence *499 concerning where a person actually lives both clearly point to the same jurisdiction, it is likely that such place will be deemed to constitute the individual’s

Mangione v. Snead

173 Md. 33 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Oct 29, 1937

But even so, if it definitely and clearly appeared that there was in fact no rational basis for the opinion, it had no probative force. Donnelly v. Donnelly, 156 Md. 81 , 143 A. 648; Livingston v. Safe Dep. & Tr. … Bradford, 133 Md. 363, 367 , 105 A. 303 . *51 There must, however, be a reliable basis for the adjudication of it as a fact, something beyond mere conjecture, or possibility; and the burden is upon the plaintiff to establish