Case law

Ash v. Baltimore & Ohio Railroad

72 Md. 144 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Mar 18, 1890

action founded exclusively upon the statute of a neighboring State, the only principle upon which it can be sustained in the Courts of this State, is that of comity; and if it be not sustainable upon that ground, there was clearly … But even the qualified decisions of the Court of Appeals of New York, and of the Supreme Court of the United States, upon this subject, have not met with general approval, and have not been generally followed by subsequent

Dicken v. United States

862 F. Supp. 91 · District Court, D. Maryland · Aug 31, 1994

While federal judges in Kansas are not necessarily better qualified than this Court to apply Kansas law, they are undoubtedly more familiar with it, a further consideration justifying transfer. Cf. Gulf Oil Corp. v. … reasonably be had only if the case were tried in Charlotte____ The question of transfer under 28 U.S.C. § 1404 (a) was, of course, a matter resting in the sound discretion of the District Judge, but we cannot imagine a case more clearly

Gonzalez v. State

Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jun 7, 2024

(citation omitted). 15 Form I-918, Supplement A (Petition for Qualifying Family Member of U-1 Recipient) is a form that a petitioner fills out with information about any qualifying family member included … That is clearly not correct—if a defendant has multiple reasons to lie, it cannot be the case that a denial of the right to impeach is reversible only if the defendant was denied the right to cross-examine about each reason

United States v. Frankfeld

100 F. Supp. 934 · District Court, D. Maryland · Oct 31, 1951

at page 569 of 48 S.Ct. it was said: “A standard which would forbid the reception of evidence, if obtained by other than nice ethical conduct by government officials, would make society suffer and give criminals greater immunity … thereto, it is my judgment that no useful purpose would now be subserved ’by hearing, the defendants’ motion to suppress, evidence of intercepted telephone communications, either the original messages or other evidence clearly

Green

District Court, D. Maryland · Apr 17, 2026

App’x 395, 397 (4th Cir. 2006) (per curiam) (noting that a “district court may clearly take judicial notice of [state court] public records”). … “It has been observed that ‘merely private conduct, no matter how discriminatory or wrongful[,]’ fails to qualify as state action.” Philips v. Pitt Cnty.

Hayes v. State

355 Md. 615 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Aug 27, 1999

The cut-off is clearly not when argument and instructions are concluded or even when the jury leaves the courtroom, as urged by Hayes, but when the jury commences deliberations. See United States v. … Assurance that the alternate juror remains qualified to serve is a prerequisite to a substitution and, unless waived by the defendant, must be established on the record.

Chertkof v. Southland Corp.

280 Md. 1 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Mar 22, 1977

Whether a lessor may avoid waiver of a breach of covenant by unilaterally qualifying his acceptance of subsequently accrued rent is a question which apparently we have never decided. … In these circumstances, we cannot say that the finding of waiver was clearly erroneous. Judgment affirmed; appellant to pay costs. 1 . This case has twice been the subject of an appeal.

Hendricks v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority

District Court, D. Maryland · Jan 29, 2024

when a trial has resulted in substantially different evidence; (2) there has been a change in controlling legal authority that has made a contrary decision of law applicable to the issue; or (3) the prior decision was clearly … Third, the Court does not find that Judge Day’s decision was clearly erroneous or would result in manifest injustice.

Cannon v. Cannon

156 Md. App. 387 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Apr 15, 2004

[Appellant] has testified that he filled out a form stating his assets when he was applying to qualify for a loan for the new house. … The trial judge’s findings in this regard were not clearly erroneous.

Dowling v. A.R.T. Inst. of Wash., Inc.

372 F. Supp. 3d 274 · District Court, D. Maryland · Mar 6, 2019

The contract alone establishes that A.R.T. providers are sufficiently "medical" to pull them within the ambit of an informed consent claim, at least at this stage of the case. … Gross , 319 Md. 138 , 571 A.2d 1219 (1990) (parental immunity); State ex rel. Bond v. Consol. Gas, Elec.

Gonzalez v. State

Court of Appeals of Maryland · May 29, 2024

(citation omitted). 15 Form I-918, Supplement A (Petition for Qualifying Family Member of U-1 Recipient) is a form that a petitioner fills out with information about any qualifying family member included … That is clearly not correct—if a defendant has multiple reasons to lie, it cannot be the case that a denial of the right to impeach is reversible only if the defendant was denied the right to cross-examine about each reason

Francis v. State of Maryland

District Court, D. Maryland · Mar 18, 2024

immunity. … Legal Standard The Supervisory Defendants argue that they are entitled to statutory immunity under the MTCA because plaintiff has not alleged facts that, if proven, would establish that

Rogers v. Board of Education

859 F. Supp. 2d 742 · District Court, D. Maryland · Apr 9, 2012

Co., 443 F.3d 334, 339 (4th Cir.2006) (holding that provision of the Securities Act of 1933 requiring plaintiff to show she qualified as a “person purchasing” securities was not jurisdictional because Congress did not clearly … The Board of Education of Prince George’s County is a “public board of education,” which qualifies as a “local educational agency,” which in turn constitutes a “program or activity” under Title VI.

Bernstein v. Maryland

674 F. Supp. 2d 703 · District Court, D. Maryland · Dec 15, 2009

Section 3A clearly meets the test. The prime reason for an upper age limit is to weed out judges who are reaching a time when the degradations of age are taking a physical and mental toll. … This process will ensure that the recalled judge, though past 70, is still physically and mentally qualified to serve in a demanding and important post.

Sharp v. Sharp

58 Md. App. 386 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Apr 9, 1984

We further stated that to qualify under this rule, “any unpaid marital debt must be directly traceable to the acquisition of marital property.” Id. … Although the appellee had the burden of proving the value of the marital property (as she had the affirmative of that issue), appellant had the burden of establishing traceable debt.

Shapiro & Duncan, Inc. v. Payne

215 Md. App. 674 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jan 29, 2014

The parties’ dispute centers on whether Payne’s interstate employment qualifies him as a “covered employee” under L.E. § 9–203(a)(2). … On review, we are persuaded that the trial court’s findings of fact, to which we must defer, are not clearly erroneous. See W.M.

White v. State

142 Md. App. 535 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Feb 4, 2002

Despite its broad discretion, a trial court’s “decision to admit or reject [expert testimony] is reviewable on appeal and may be reversed if it is founded on an error of law or if the trial court clearly abused its discretion … This will be *545 evidence which tends to establish or disprove a material fact. Id. at 41 , 542 A.2d 1258 .

Stanley v. State

157 Md. App. 363 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jun 22, 2004

THE COURT: I mean, there are cases that clearly say, as I recall from reading them, that you are allowed to do that and there is not reversible error. … “It is well established in Maryland that evidence of a defendant’s prior crime can tempt the jury into convicting the defendant because he has committed bad acts in the past rather than because the evidence establishes guilt

Carlini v. State

215 Md. App. 415 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Dec 18, 2013

Each opinion nonetheless held clearly that a sentence in excess of the sentencing cap established by the plea agreement was illegal per se. … “Clearly, then, restitution is punishment for the crime of which the defendant has been convicted.

Maryland House of Correction v. Jenkins

228 Md. 146 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Mar 20, 1962

This was granted and was continued until the death of her husband, when she qualified for social security benefits. … The question of dependency in this case was clearly one of fact to be decided by the jury, and the “reasonable probability” instruction was proper.