Case law

Natural Resources Forest Conservation Act – Whether the Act Permits Forest Mitigation Banks that Merely Preserve Existing Forest, Rather than Create or Restore Forest

Maryland Attorney General Reports · Nov 24, 2020

The Advisory Group’s final report did not include any recommendation that existing forests should qualify for treatment as “mitigation bank[s].” … At first glance, it seems hopelessly ambiguous; paragraph (i) contains one verb without any subject, and the introductory clause contains a series of nested modifying phrases without clearly identifying the antecedent for

Schmeizl v. Schmeizl

186 Md. 371 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Apr 16, 1946

Joseph Schmeizl, a brother, qualified as administrator of the estate in the Orphans’ Court of Baltimore City. Mrs. … The present appeal is from that order. *374 It has long been established at common law that, in the absence of statutory provision to the contrary, a widow will not be barred from her right of inheritance in her husband’s

Alexis v. State

437 Md. 457 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Mar 24, 2014

Additionally, included as part of the right to assistance of counsel, is the qualified right of a defendant to select and be represented by one’s preferred attorney. … See also Goldsberry, 419 Md. at 118, 18 A.3d at 847 (“The right to counsel of choice . . . is qualified.”).

Stansbury v. MDR Development, L.L.C.

161 Md. App. 594 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Apr 4, 2005

Kennedy, 5 Har. and J. 195 (1821)): Whatever the law was elsewhere, that case settled it for this state, and has never been overruled or qualified. … MDR has not insisted that the easement be established over the old footbridge.

Williams v. State

329 Md. 1 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Dec 23, 1992

Their relationship thus established, Jackson told Gary he wanted to purchase four more ounces. On March 15, Gary phoned Jackson to offer the four ounces that Jackson desired. … Relative to the usual vagueness challenge, Ricky’s assertion is clearly without merit.

Hogge v. SS YORKMAR

434 F. Supp. 715 · District Court, D. Maryland · Mar 11, 1977

Radio communication shall be established on 156.65 mc/s [channel 13]. This regulation is clearly insufficient to clarify the concept of “clearance.” … The Corps of Engineers is an instrumentality of the United States Government, raising the question of sovereign immunity to Penn Central’s claim.

City of Gaithersburg v. Montgomery County

271 Md. 505 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · May 1, 1974

which establishes it free of fundamental objections.” … City of Baltimore, 179 Md. 407, 409 , 19 A. 2d 704 (1941) (“It appears also that subsequent clauses should not be limited by independent'precedent clauses unless the intention be clearly expressed.”). 3 .

Green Healthcare Sol'ns v. Med. Cannabis Comm'n

Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Apr 28, 2022

HG § 13-3309(c)(1)(i).2 The Commission has authority to “establish an application review process for granting processor licenses in which applications are reviewed, evaluated, and ranked based on criteria established by … [a]nd that within that authority they can establish the process as they deem it to be proper.”

Forrest v. Baltimore City, Maryland: Baltimore Police Department

District Court, D. Maryland · Jun 6, 2023

This course of action is also consistent with the Supreme Court of the United States’ direction that because it establishes not just a defense but a privilege from suit, sovereign immunity should be addressed at an early … However, in addition to offering no timeframe regarding this allegation, Plaintiff offers no support as to how such leaked information and resulting harm could qualify as an adverse action.

Phillips v. Maryland Board of Law Examiners

District Court, D. Maryland · Feb 18, 2021

The party seeking summary judgment bears the initial burden of establishing either that no genuine issue of material fact exists, or that a material fact essential to the non-movant’s claim is absent. … Court held that plaintiff’s claims survived the Eleventh Amendment bar because “[t]he prayer for injunctive relief—that state officials be restrained from enforcing an order in contravention of controlling federal law—clearly

(2009)

94 Op. Att'y Gen. 161 · Maryland Attorney General Reports · Sep 29, 2009

By contrast, our longstanding advice has been that the Open Meetings Act does not specify when a public body must hold a meeting; it simply establishes rules that apply when a meeting occurs. 81 Opinions of the Attorney General … SG § 10-502(i). 6 The statute further qualifies these exclusions.

Kena

District Court, D. Maryland · Mar 30, 2026

Finally, in a footnote, Defendants suggest they are entitled to qualified immunity. ECF 21 at 8 n.3. This case is undeniably heartbreaking. … Md. 2011)), and “are entitled to sovereign immunity[,]” Lewis, 262 F. Supp. 2d at 614.

Kuenne v. Kuenne

219 Md. 101 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Feb 17, 1959

This is the reason why a subscribing witness may express an opinion as to testamentary capacity without first demonstrating he is qualified to testify. Townshend v. Townshend, 7 Gill 10, 27 (1848). … The reason for the ruling was clearly wrong but, so far as we can de *109 termine from the record, the result was right.

Henry v. State

324 Md. 204 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Oct 11, 1991

For the requested instruction to be warranted, Henry would have had to establish that the witnesses had a qualifying conviction. This was not done. … Yet, Henry did not establish through evidence that Robert Williams was convicted of a qualified crime.

Bowers v. Cook

124 Md. 567 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jan 13, 1915

Tbe language of these two clauses clearly shows, in imposing upon the trustees duties which they could not perform as trustees, but only as executors,, that they were to be the executors of the estate as well as trustees. … Under the provisions of section 43, the Court might have excluded Lucas after the expiration of thirty days from the date of the probate, if he had not qualified: and excluded Cook after six months and have issued letters

Donohue v. Mavronis

Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Aug 27, 2025

The bulkhead serves to establish a property line which will preserve the small access of Mr. … The previous lawsuit ended in a settlement which was placed on the record and included a dismissal of the case with prejudice, which is a qualifying final judgment on the merits. See, e.g., Bryan v. State Farm Mut.

King v. State

425 Md. 550 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Apr 24, 2012

The reviewing court defers to the fact-finding of the hearing court, unless the findings are erroneous clearly. Id. … King was convicted only of second-degree assault, which is not a qualifying crime under § 2-504. 34 As regards to King’s facial challenge to the Act, a party challenging facially the constitutionality of a statute “must establish

State of Maryland Commission on Human Relations v. Kaydon Ring & Seal, Inc.

149 Md. App. 666 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Mar 3, 2003

We must be mindful, however, that the agency’s power to reverse the decision of an ALJ is not limited to those situations in which the ALJ’s factual findings are clearly erroneous. … With respect to the third element—that the employee was meeting his employer’s expectations at the time of discharge— Kaydon argues that the evidence overwhelmingly established that Henry was not qualified for the machine

Campbell v. State

Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Oct 2, 2025

The motion court’s factual findings were not clearly erroneous Here, the motion court’s factual findings were not clearly erroneous because there was competent and material evidence to support the court’s findings … Alexander was qualified as an expert in the field of forensic pathology. He testified regarding the autopsy photographs he took of Purcell. 31 Dr.

SAXON MORTGAGE SERVICES, INC. v. Harrison

186 Md. App. 228 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jun 11, 2009

Although those documents are not clearly identified in the record, appellant does not dispute this fact. … A trial court’s factual findings are not clearly erroneous as long as they are supported by any competent material evidence in the record. See Figgins v.