Case law

Fischer v. State

117 Md. App. 443 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Sep 26, 1997

The house in question was clearly a structure in that it was a building. … Generally, a structure which qualifies as a dwelling house for the purpose of burglary also qualifies as a dwelling house for the purpose of arson. In Kanaras v.

Hicks v. Baltimore & O. R.

10 F.2d 606 · District Court, D. Maryland · Feb 3, 1926

Supp. 1919, § 3115%e) whereby any claimant who is neither an enemy nor an ally of an enemy may establish his right in a court of equity, and compel the return of the property, if wrongfully sequestered. … This section as amended clearly covers the case at bar. The railroad company contends, however, that the amendment may not be retroactively applied because it does not clearly appear that Congress so intended.

Eckstein v. Eckstein

38 Md. App. 506 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jan 12, 1978

The wife consulted Legal Aid but was advised that she did not qualify for their assistance. … We are, of course, aware of the strictures of Maryland Rule 1086, which cautions that the judgment of the lower court shall not be set aside on the evidence unless clearly erroneous.

Thornton Mellon v. Frederick Cnty. Sheriff

479 Md. 474 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jul 12, 2022

The procedures established criteria to guide the Town Manager in the validation and verification of signatures on the petition. See id. at 502, 76 A.3d at 1005. … Not directly or clearly expressed; communicated only vaguely or indirectly <counsel’s implied statement>. 2. Recognized by law as existing inferentially <implied agreement>.”

Office of Occupational Medicine & Safety v. Baltimore Community Relations Commission

88 Md. App. 420 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Sep 9, 1991

facie case of employment discrimination under section 24-34-402(l)(a), an applicant bears the burden of showing that he or she is handicapped within the meaning of section 24-34-301(4), that the applicant was otherwise qualified … It is well settled, however, that, once an employee establishes a prima facie case of handicap discrimination, as Johnson has done here, the employer has the burden to establish to a “reasonable probability” that the complainant

Webb v. Oxley

226 Md. 339 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Aug 17, 1961

Webb concerning “the various sources that refused assistance in the location of lawyers qualified to serve as counsel or expert witness or other aid in this case”; (b) in asking Mr. … Webb propounded to appellee on cross-examination, seeking to establish Mr. Oxley’s negligent handling of the condemnation case by attempting to show his unfamiliarity with certain legal textbooks on trial tactics.

Chilcoat v. Reid

154 Md. 378 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jan 12, 1928

In due course they qualified and reported .a sale of the property at a price which left in their hands for distribution $13,388.46. … establish the fact of his renunciation.

Cromwell v. Royal Canadian Insurance

49 Md. 366 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jun 28, 1878

This is all the testimony the record contains, but it shows very clearly that when this paper left the City of Balti *376 more it was an incomplete., unexecuted instrument, forming and evidencing a'contract with no one ; … Eagle Insurance Company of Cincinnati, 10 Gray, 131 , where the defendant corporation was a company created by the laws of Ohio and established at Cincinnati, but had *377 an agent in Boston, duly authorized to make insurance

Blaine v. Blaine

97 Md. App. 689 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Oct 27, 1993

The fundamental importance of Thomasian lies not in it providing an example of a situation not qualifying as a change in circumstance; indeed, neither of the parties in Thomasian alleged any such change existed. … We cannot say this finding was clearly erroneous or an abuse of judicial discretion. B.

Reserve Insurance v. Duckett

240 Md. 591 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Dec 7, 1965

Cooke testified that “It is the copy which the agent sends to the home office, as an indication that it has established a relationship between the in *595 sured and ourselves.” … The Court understands that this ruling has been concurred in by all companies writing automobile insurance qualified to do business in the State of Maryland and that the SR 22 form has been revised so as to continue a certification

Thomassen Lincoln-Mercury, Inc. v. Goldbaum

45 Md. App. 297 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Apr 14, 1980

We do not read Wedeman as establishing any such principle. … That is clearly not the law.

Hourie v. State

53 Md. App. 62 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Nov 9, 1982

The evidence established that this information would have affected the appellant’s benefits and was, therefore, material. … The evidence clearly established that Nearhoof and Jamie met that definition.

Metalcraft, Inc. v. Pratt

65 Md. App. 281 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Nov 18, 1985

It established the total sales price for the foundry inventory at $60,000 (including a figure for goodwill). … Its reliance on Qualified Builders is misplaced, however.

Bottini v. Dept. of Finance, Montgomery Co.

450 Md. 177 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Oct 7, 2016

As with former CP § 12-102(b)(l), CP § 12-202(b) appears to qualify the term “money” to refer to it in the narrowest and most physical sense—as “coin or currency^]” That CP § 12-202(b) qualifies the term “money,” however, … Thus, the relevant legislative history of the forfeiture statute establishes that the term “money” certainly encompasses and applies to the funds contained in a bank account.

Beatty's v. Chapline

2 H. & J. 7 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jun 15, 1806

, according to the nature of tlie injury, and the qualified interest, which he has. … Now the sheriff’ had a qualified interest in the goods; the defendant had a qualified interest also; and these qualified interests together, composed a full and absolute ownership; each party, therefore, had a property in

Wilson v. State

241 Md. App. 683 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jul 30, 2019

Rather, it appears to pertain to anyone who qualifies as a “spouse,” without regard to the motive for the marriage. … In affirming the trial court, the Alaska Supreme Court held that, “the spousal testimonial immunity privilege is capable of being relaxed under Criminal Rule 53.” Id.

Mullinix v. Mullinix

12 Md. App. 402 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jun 28, 1971

For this reason the court has established certain principles for better application of the legal standard to the facts at hand. … been applied; we feel obliged to follow the established rule.

Kurstin v. Bromberg Rosenthal, LLP

420 Md. 466 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jul 12, 2011

The question before us is whether disclosure orders adverse to the attorney-client privilege qualify for immediate appeal under the collateral order doctrine. … Moreover, “[i]t is well established in Maryland that generally ‘interlocutory discovery orders do not meet the requirements of the collateral order doctrine and are not appealable under that doctrine.’ ” Falik [v.

Cincotta v. United States

362 F. Supp. 386 · District Court, D. Maryland · Jun 18, 1973

It is not disputed that he was well-qualified for this position of test observer. … Furthermore, the “undisputed evidence and all permissible inferences therefrom [must] clearly establish that the risk of danger was fully known to and understood by the plaintiff.” Kasten Constr. Co. v.

Imagnu v. Wodajo

85 Md. App. 208 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Dec 4, 1990

That they are is well established. Deering v. Deering, 292 Md. 115 , 437 A.2d 883 (1981); Gravenstine v. Gravenstine, 58 Md.App. 158, 168 , 472 A.2d 1001 (1984). … The first is that the court is satisfied after having studied the letter from counsel from the World Bank and its own knowledge, is satisfied that the Bank is not subject to a qualified domestic relations order, and that