Case law

Williams v. State

99 Md. App. 711 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Apr 5, 1994

We cannot say that Judge Johnson clearly abused that discretion in deeming the evidence relevant in this case. … Such a predicate was established in this case. Mia Jones became aware of the charges pending against the appellant on December 15, 1992.

Boyd v. MERC.-SAFE DEP. & TRUST CO.

28 Md. App. 18 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Sep 5, 1975

This plat had the metes and bounds of the Cook property, then owned *21 by the seller, marked clearly upon it. … The exercise of the court's discretion, however, must not be arbitrary and is controlled by established principles of equity.

Environmental Integrity Project v. Mirant Ash Management, LLC

197 Md. App. 179 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Dec 29, 2010

Birdsong, we set out the four-part test for determining whether a party qualifies for intervention as a matter of right: (1) the application for intervention must be timely; (2) the applicant must have an interest in the … Rather, the burden is on appellants to establish an abuse of discretion by the circuit court.

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.

Jones v. State

310 Md. 569 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Sep 16, 1987

As Jones’s suppression motion was clearly based on a claim of impermissible suggestiveness, the issue to be considered is whether the excluded question had any relevance in establishing this claim. … Thus, the rationale of Mills is clearly controlling in this case.

McClain v. State

425 Md. 238 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Mar 21, 2012

Billings’ statement into evidence because it did not qualify for admission under any of the hearsay exceptions. Clearly, it could not be admitted under Rule 5-612; after Ms. … This was clearly inconsistent with her statement.

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.

Matthews

District Court, D. Maryland · Oct 31, 2025

Qualified immunity Finally, Defendants argue that the Individual Defendants sued in their personal capacities are entitled to qualified immunity. … otherwise proceed, this Court will deny the motion to dismiss on qualified immunity grounds.

City of Takoma Park v. Citizens for Decent Government

301 Md. 439 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Nov 8, 1984

III, § 16-4 specifies that “[t]he board of supervisors of elections of the county, established by public general law, shall constitute a special board of election supervisors for the conduct of any referendum on any public … Although the affidavit in the present case fully complies with the requirements of Section 4 as to the first mandatory requirement, it clearly fails in regard to the second mandatory requirement, i.e., to state that of the

Criscione v. US Nuclear Regulatory Commission

District Court, D. Maryland · Oct 6, 2020

And the waiver must be established by the statute itself. See Lane v. … Pena, 518 U.S. 187, 192 (1996) (“A statute’s legislative history cannot supply a waiver that does not appear clearly in any statutory text: ‘the “unequivocal expression” of elimination of sovereign immunity that we insist

Lady v. Prince George's County

43 Md. App. 99 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jul 11, 1979

.” — the Court nevertheless clearly held fast to the rule that there was no right to a refund of overpaid taxes except as permitted by statute. … This type of reasoning has not found favor in Maryland, however, as witness the continued vitality (except as expressly repealed or diluted by statute) of the general doctrine of sovereign immunity. 3 As did the Illinois

McCauseland v. Baltimore Humane Impartial Society

95 Md. 741 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jun 17, 1902

Barnitz qualified as the executor thereof and proceeded to administer the estate. … It also appears clearly from the evidence submitted by the appellee that the mortgage debt, evidenced by the note, remains unpaid.

Burns v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority

District Court, D. Maryland · Sep 18, 2020

Forst, 4 F.3d 244, 250 (4th Cir. 1993), “[t]his principle only applies . . . if all facts necessary to the affirmative defense ‘clearly appear[] on the face of the complaint,’” Goodman, 494 F.3d at 464 (emphasis omitted … Sovereign Immunity In the WMATA Compact, the three sovereigns who created WMATA provided that it would enjoy sovereign immunity.

Dobbs v. State

148 Md. 34 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Apr 9, 1925

For the reasons so clearly stated by Judge Adkins, speaking for this Court in McAllister v. State, 140 Md. 651 , there was error in these rulings. … The doctrine that a court must be presumed in criminal cases to be immune from the influence of improper evidence admitted by it seems to me dangerous, radical and unsound.

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.

Gray v. Chessie System

588 F. Supp. 1334 · District Court, D. Maryland · Jul 23, 1984

Co., 406 U.S. 320 , 92 S.Ct. 1562 , 32 L.Ed.2d 95 (1972), to require exhaustion of compulsory arbitration before jurisdiction is established in federal courts. … Both qualify as “minor disputes” arising under the contract. See Rules 43, 48, and 49 of “Agreement” attached as Exhibit 1 to Exhibit A of Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss.

Jones v. State

38 Md. App. 288 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Dec 13, 1977

The record clearly shows that a written waiver was obtained from appellant before any interrogation was begun at that location. … You must find that the defendant’s confession has been corroborated by independent evidence to establish that a crime has been committed and this evidence need not establish by itself that a crime has been committed beyond

Medsense, LLC v. University System of Maryland

District Court, D. Maryland · Jul 6, 2020

In an attempt to establish that Defendants are not immune on this basis, Plaintiff’s Proposed Complaint makes several allegations in Counts II, III, IV, and IX. … In sum, the Court does not find that the allegations plausibly establish that Dr.

Benisek v. Lamone

348 F. Supp. 3d 493 · District Court, D. Maryland · Nov 7, 2018

Yes, that was clearly one of our many [goals]. Id. at 81 . … Most citizens can achieve this participation only as qualified voters through the election of legislators to represent them.

Smith v. State

186 Md. App. 498 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jul 6, 2009

The other elements of the privilege generally not being in issue, the establishment of compulsion establishes the privilege. … Would being asked to come to the station house and then being questioned behind closed doors qualify? Would a traffic stop qualify? Would a Terry stop on the street, with or without an attendant frisk, qualify?