Case law

Livingston v. State

317 Md. 408 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Oct 11, 1989

It is the fact of the lawful arrest which establishes the authority to search, and we hold that in the case of a lawful custodial arrest a full search of the person is not only an exception to the warrant requirement of the … Clearly then, a reasonable search under such circumstances is predicated upon a prior lawful arrest.

Robinette v. Hunsecker

439 Md. 243 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jul 18, 2014

Such a court order is called a “qualified domestic relations order” or “QDRO” in ERISA lingo. See 29 U.S.C. §1056(d)(3); 26 U.S.C. §414(p). … That may be to Wife’s advantage in the current litigation, but it does not give a sensible meaning to the Agreement, or to paragraph 8 in particular, which clearly accords Ex-Wife a 50 percent “equitable interest” in Husband

United States v. Tettenburn

186 F. Supp. 203 · District Court, D. Maryland · Jul 22, 1960

The ‘clearly erroneous’ rule applied in equity appeals has no place here, nor even the ‘substantial evidence’ rule of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C.A. § 100’9. … And since the ministerial exemption is a matter of legislative grace, the selective service registrant bears the burden of clearly establishing a right to the exemption.

Colombo Bank, F.S.B. v. Sharp

477 B.R. 613 · District Court, D. Maryland · May 5, 2008

“Where there are two permissible views of the evidence, the factfinder’s choice between them cannot be clearly erroneous.” Id. at 574, 105 S.Ct. 1504 . III. … This general illustration is qualified by the exception that one is not justified in relying on another’s mere assertions where there are obvious indications that an independent investigation may be necessary.

State Department of Health v. Walker

238 Md. 512 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · May 4, 1965

As the moving party, appellee sought to establish by his own expertise and that of the two Department employees, Dr. … This ruling of the lower court, in my opinion, was clearly erroneous, an abuse of its discretion, and highly prejudicial to the State.

Dickinson-Tidewater, Inc. v. Supervisor of Assessments

273 Md. 245 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Dec 3, 1974

The Assessor’s single witness — having qualified as an expert — testified that he arrived at the assessment on the improvements principally by capitalizing the rental income. … What the witness clearly indicated was that he attributed a uniform per acre valuation to the entirety because of its improved state.

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.

Smith v. State

394 Md. 184 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Aug 3, 2006

[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: If he is evaluating him, he should be qualified as an expert in his capacity of an attorney. [THE COURT]: No. (Emphasis added). … Thus, for the defendant to prevail on a claim for ineffective assistance of counsel, he or she must also establish prejudice.

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).

Shivers v. State

Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jan 3, 2023

First, appellant clearly exerted unauthorized control over Mr. Smith’s property. Mr. … Smith’s financial ability to qualify for an assisted living facility. Appellant testified, “[Mr. Smith] asked about whether he was going to qualify because of his assets.

LaSalle Bank National Ass'n v. Lehman Bros. Holdings, Inc.

209 F.R.D. 112 · District Court, D. Maryland · Jul 25, 2002

Once it is established that a document was prepared in anticipation of litigation, work product immunity protects documents prepared by or for a representative of a party, including its agent. … Clearly, these documents are protected by the work product doctrine.

Anderson v. State

61 Md. App. 436 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Feb 6, 1985

statute did not cover all unlawful killings where the instrumentality of death had been a vehicle, but only those where the vehicle had been operated “in a grossly negligent manner,” any vehicular homicide that would have qualified … If the totally gratutitous assault and battery does not inflict sufficient physical injury to qualify under the statute, the assailant is still guilty of the common law misdemeanor of assault and battery.

Osunde v. Lewis

281 F.R.D. 250 · District Court, D. Maryland · Mar 15, 2012

Plaintiffs also state the following: “Clearly, the Defendant has rebuffed any attempt to settle this case because of the belief that the [cjhild’s death was not proximately caused by the underlying accident. … Piver is well qualified to opine on [this] subject based on his education and training, including his authorship” of the attached article. Pis.’ Resp. 5. It is possible, of course, that Dr.

BOARD OF EDUC. OF AA CTY. v. Barbano

45 Md. App. 27 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Feb 14, 1980

The teacher shall be observed by more than one qualified person each year as determined by the superintendent. 3. … Provision shall be made for an over-all assessment by the evaluator which clearly indicates a satisfactory or unsatisfactory rating. 5.

Tripp v. State

36 Md. App. 459 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jun 13, 1977

There must, of course, bo established all of the elements. We conclude that the appellant failed to establish *468 at least three of the necessary four elements. … There, the provoking act was rather clearly the effective cause of the killing.

Julian v. Christopher

320 Md. 1 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jun 29, 1990

If the parties intend to limit the right to assign or sublease by giving the landlord the arbitrary right to refuse to consent, they may do so by a freely negotiated provision of the lease clearly spelling out this intent … He may establish that it would be unfair to do so by establishing that when executing the lease he was aware of and relied on the Klawans interpretation of the “silent consent” clause.

Burris v. State

435 Md. 370 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Oct 23, 2013

Sergeant Workley was then qualified as an expert “in the field of gangs, gang membership, gang insignia, gang ranking, [and] gang identification.” … The Court responded, "I think you're objecting to his being called and qualified as an expert is sufficient to preserve the issue....

State Tax Commission v. Whitehall Foundation, Inc.

214 Md. 316 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Sep 3, 2001

It is exempt from Federal and Maryland income taxes and is qualified to receive non-taxable gifts. … Since in my opinion, a sound foundation has been established, it would be most unfortunate if further work is not done.

Towson University v. Conte

384 Md. 68 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Nov 17, 2004

Therefore, the suit would be barred by governmental immunity. … Therefore, the suit was barred by governmental immunity.