Case law

Harris v. State

40 Md. App. 58 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jul 13, 1978

The State objected to the admission of this statement, contending that it constituted hearsay and did not qualify under the admission against penal interest exception. … that a confession by one other than the defendant, that he committed the crime in question, should be received and considered by the trier of the guilt of the accused, unless it is clearly collusive, frivolous or otherwise

Mead v. Gilbert

170 Md. 592 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jun 10, 1936

These facts are sufficient to establish a confidential relationship between Robert and his mother. In Beinbrink v. … Fox, 121 Md. 102 , 104, 88 A. 106 , the court said: "It *Page 605 is firmly established as the law of this state that, where an aged parent makes a conveyance to a child, the burden is cast upon the grantee of establishing

Collins v. State

89 Md. App. 273 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Nov 6, 1991

Because it usurps the fact-finding function of the jury, such an instruction is clearly error, United States v. … This is especially true when a court is construing a penal statute, which, according to well established case law, is to be strictly construed.

Cabrera v. Penate

439 Md. 99 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jun 20, 2014

In prior gubernatorial primaries, by the deadline to file a certificate of candidacy, both the deadline to change party affiliation and the deadline to establish 10 See supra p. 5. … We find the language of § 5-203 to express, quite clearly, its mandate.

Hepple v. State

31 Md. App. 525 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jun 4, 1976

admitted or rejected when offered out of the proper order, in the absence of some positive rule of court upon the subject, must be allowed to rest in the discretion of the court directing the trial, as the tribunal best qualified … Although the definition of rebuttal evidence is clearly stated, Mr. Poe was aware that what is simply defined may not be readily determined.

Radio Communications, Inc. v. Public Service Commission

271 Md. 82 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jan 30, 1974

It is qualified as a public service company, so that by the plain, clear and unambiguous language of subsection (b), it “s/ia££”(emphasis added) receive a certificate of convenience and necessity from the PSC authorizing … In short, the procedure which I think the General Assembly established in the legislation under consideration in the present case is quite analogous to procedures previously adopted by the General Assembly in prior legislation

Paul Construction Co. v. Powell

200 Md. 168 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · May 9, 1952

Mattax is certainly qualified to point out, for what it may be worth, his opinion as to any lacunae in Dr. Arnold’s reasoning. … Neither could be deduced from mathematical or other general principles or from facts undisputed or established by laboratory tests.

Barnes v. Commissioner of Labor & Industry

45 Md. App. 396 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Apr 15, 1980

As to this, they agree, the unions have an obvious and direct interest; and the law clearly recognizes it by specifically including them among the groups entitled to notice and to file a review petition. … In part, this is done by having his staff audit the payroll records submitted to him, and compare them with the various classifications and wage rate determinations initially established for the job.

O. C. Taxpayers for Equal Rights, Inc. v. Mayor of Ocean City

280 Md. 585 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jul 13, 1977

However, the Supreme Court struck down this classification because the exclusion of otherwise qualified voters was not shown to be necessary to promote a compelling state interest. … Clearly the dominant purpose of the legislation was to limit the vote to domiciliaries of Ocean City.

Ingram v. Cantwell-Cleary Co.

Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Dec 22, 2023

It is clearly tied into the employee’s duties. The time period of one year is not unreasonably long. … They contend that Cantwell-Cleary’s customer lists and pricing information do not qualify as trade secrets under MUTSA and they claim that the evidence did not establish that Appellants actually misappropriated any such

Goldsmith v. State

337 Md. 112 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jan 12, 1995

Another difference in Ritchie was that the Pennsylvania statute making the CYS records confidential created only a qualified privilege similar to the qualified privilege created for the school records in Zaal . … There was no showing of any likelihood of obtaining information relevant to the defense in the records. 5 In addition, there clearly was no repressed memory syndrome in the instant case.

Snyder v. Holy Cross Hospital

30 Md. App. 317 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Feb 26, 1976

This denomination of a qualified property right is a happy one from the standpoint of sustaining the equitable right to grant temporary relief by injunction,. ...” The rule set out by Jackson is the law of this State. … Miller is clearly factually inapposite to the case before us.

Bangura v. Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services

District Court, D. Maryland · Feb 10, 2025

of Rights, is not entitled to qualified immunity.” … It is not clear from Defendants’ Opposition on which claims Defendants seek qualified immunity, although Defendants explain in their Reply that they “are entitled to qualified immunity from the alleged State and federal

Daulatzai v. State of Maryland

District Court, D. Maryland · Jun 9, 2022

yelling, only commenced after the police officers unlawfully seized her, which clearly does not and cannot establish that there was probable cause for her forcible removal from the plane before the officers touched her … of the immunity question.”).

Fedorowicz v. State Retirement & Pension System

164 Md. App. 198 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Sep 15, 2005

The panel unanimously held that cancer qualifies as an “injury” under the statutory scheme. See id. at 15 , 800 A.2d 803 . … We do not address whether claimants like Fedorowicz may assert a claim directly against the employer agency that allegedly caused the application to be submitted late, subject to any applicable notice and governmental immunity

Morton v. Charles County Board of Education

373 F. Supp. 394 · District Court, D. Maryland · Mar 6, 1974

This must be done in accordance with constitutional requirements established by the Supreme Court. It is not always, if ever, an easy task. See discussion in Walston v. … , and defendants were required to spend such a large amount of time and effort in answering claims which were clearly without merit.

Travis v. State

218 Md. App. 410 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Aug 26, 2014

Being asleep qualifies as an instance of being unconscious. Were the Verdicts Inconsistent? … The reason behind the rule, however, was clearly not offended.

Scott v. Director Gail Watts

District Court, D. Maryland · Jan 18, 2024

If an affirmative defense “clearly appears on the face of the complaint,” however, it may be raised as a basis for dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6). See Andrews v. … > The Court will not entertain the defendants’ argument that they are entitled to qualified immunity. The argument consists of a recitation of the law on qualified immunity.

Hunter v. State

110 Md. App. 144 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · May 29, 1996

What appellant did falls clearly within the § 8-601 definition of “practice nurse midwifery.” … “[Without the establishment of compulsion ... the gears of the Fifth Amendment privilege are not engaged.

Bowling v. Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services

District Court, D. Maryland · Apr 18, 2024

, since the proposed amendments would have also been dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6) on sovereign immunity grounds). … would run contrary to the Fourth Circuit’s well-established “policy to liberally allow amendment in keeping with the spirit of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a),” Galustian, 591 F.3d at 729.