Case law

Long Green Valley Ass'n v. Prigel Family Creamery

206 Md. App. 264 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jun 29, 2012

The [appellants’] argument is essentially that only the sale of fruits and vegetables qualifies as the product which can be sold from either a market or stand. … In its petition for special exception, the Creamery clearly stated that it sought to establish a farm market, “or alternatively ... a Farmer’s Roadside Stand per BCZR § 404.4C.” (Emphasis added).

Land & Simmons Co. v. Arconti

223 Md. 204 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Aug 24, 1960

We think the inference to be drawn from Item 5 is greatly weakened by the fact that in the recitals and in Item 6 there is language clearly indicating that the Company might be required to supplement the insurance by other … The appellants also rely upon Item 8, which fixes the lifetime offer to sell stock “at a price established as directed by this agreement in case of the death of a Stockholder”.

Beeman v. Department of Health & Mental Hygiene

105 Md. App. 147 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jun 2, 1995

Moreover, “there certainly is no reason to think judges or juries [or guardians] are better qualified than appropriate professionals in making [medical] decisions.” … To justify flexibility with respect to dosages, sufficient evidence to establish medical necessity must be presented to the CRP.

Esposito v. Maryland Automobile Insurance Fund

274 Md. 708 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · May 12, 1975

In order to qualify to sue the Maryland Automobile Insurance Fund a claimant must comply with the requirements set forth in what is now codified as Maryland Code (1957, 1972 Repl. Vol., 1974 Cum. Supp.) … , or the identity of the operator who was operating the motor vehicle without the owner’s consent cannot be established.”

Channer v. State

94 Md. App. 356 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jan 5, 1993

Defense counsel asserted: “Clearly that is an incriminating statement when you want to come clean and basically do the right thing____ Clearly, there is interrogation without Miranda . … Thereafter, Detective Holub was recalled to the stand and was qualified as an expert on drug trafficking. He was then questioned, in essence, regarding the significance of all of the evidence gathered in the case.

State v. Paynter

234 Md. App. 252 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Sep 28, 2017

In this case, that fact was indisputably established. … This complaint is clearly an appellate afterthought.

Peeples v. Coastal Office Products, Inc.

203 F. Supp. 2d 432 · District Court, D. Maryland · May 23, 2002

Several critical facts are established as undisputed on the basis of this document authored by Pee-ples and the summary judgment record as a whole. … I must reject defendant’s contention, however, because Peeples’s EEOC intake questionnaire clearly implies a charge of retaliation. PI. ’s Ex. 36.

Food Lion, Inc. v. McNeill

393 Md. 715 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Aug 2, 2006

Pursuant to that Rule, the trial court must determine, before admitting expert testimony, that: the witness is qualified, “by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education” to testify as an expert; the matter about … It did observe, however, “The Pre-Trial Order clearly provided that all preliminary motions and motions in limine be filed at least 20 days prior to the trial date.

Baltimore Street Builders v. Stewart

186 Md. App. 684 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jul 7, 2009

Mate, 130 Md.App. 648, 658 [ 747 A.2d 743 ] (2000), Judge Adkins clearly cited and followed the above referenced cases: Both Emerson and Hallowell indicate that a strict application of the rule that a contract that violates … Judge Sally Adkins, speaking for this Court in DeReggi, said: [C]ircumstances may arise where a financially responsible and otherwise qualified builder fails to strictly comply with the licensing requirements.

In Re Sonny E. Lee

132 Md. App. 696 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jun 28, 2000

The report concludes that Sonya “is clearly the most qualified individual at this time to be appointed as Guardian” and that she “has established not only her willingness to serve in that position but has shown that she has … (c) Selection by court. — (1) Among persons with equal priority the court shall select the one best qualified of those willing to serve.

United States v. Streett

791 F. Supp. 563 · District Court, D. Maryland · Jan 14, 1992

To establish a prima facie case for enforcement, the IRS need only present " 'an affidavit of an agent involved in the investigation averring the Powell good faith elements.’ No probable cause standard need be met.” Id. … The summons clearly serves the purposes of § 7602: the information sought by the IRS is necessary to determine Streett’s income for the years in question and the amount of tax he might owe. See United States v.

Mendoza v. Anne Arundel County, Maryland

District Court, D. Maryland · Sep 18, 2025

As discussed above, the footage is minimal and, viewed in a light most favorable to Plaintiff, does not clearly corroborate either account. … Mendoza’s credibility. 10 Because the court concludes that Plaintiff cannot prevail on his claim of lack of probable cause, the court does not reach Defendants’ argument as to qualified immunity.

Dennis v. Warden, Maryland Penitentiary

6 Md. App. 295 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Mar 13, 1969

The court said the State “qualified (the statement) as to being voluntary.” The defense indicated that it desired to offer evidence and the appellant was called to the stand. … The privilege against self-incrimination was well established in the English common law by the middle of the seventeenth century.

Plein v. Department of Labor

369 Md. 421 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jun 12, 2002

An offer of greater pay by another employer to induce the claimant’s voluntary termination does not qualify; because such offers are conditions of the offered employment and thus only relate to the conditions of the future … This Court also has recognized that “it is sometimes advisable to correct a decision or decisions wrongly made in the first instance if it is found that the decision is clearly wrong and contrary to other established principles

Kiriakos v. Phillips Dankos v. Stapf

448 Md. 440 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jul 5, 2016

CR § 10-117(b) clearly was enacted to protect underage people from the seductive call of alcohol and its effects. … Countering, Phillips avows: “labeling a theory that is clearly social host liability by a different name is still social host liability.” (Emphasis in original.)

Board of Education v. Crawford

284 Md. 245 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jan 5, 1979

Webster in the Dartmouth College case: “By the law of the land is most clearly intended the general law — a law which hears before it condemns; which proceeds upon inquiry, and renders judgment only after trial. … The meaning is that every citizen shall hold his life, liberty, property, and immunities under the protection of the general rules which govern society.” ’ (Cooley, Const. Lim. 353.)

Baltimore County v. Baltimore County Fraternal Order of Police Lodge No. 4

439 Md. 547 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jul 29, 2014

s established negotiable issues. … a petition to stay arbitration pursuant to § 3-208 of this article; (x) Depriving a parent, grandparent, or natural guardian of the care and custody of his child, or changing the terms of such an order; and (xi) Denying immunity

Grandison v. State

305 Md. 685 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Apr 1, 1986

Consequently, the voir dire hypothetical, clearly designated as such, was not reversible error. … Each murder was clearly a separate offense.

BEP, INC. v. Atkinson

174 F. Supp. 2d 400 · District Court, D. Maryland · Dec 10, 2001

Thus, the privilege has not been applied to immunize employees from liability where the employee has committed an unfair or wrongful act in the course of preparing to compete in the future, including solicitation of the employer … The Court acknowledged that Maryland had not clearly adopted the tort of breach of fiduciary duty, but assumed for the purposes of that case that the tort did exist and could result in an award of punitive damages.

Motor Vehicle Admin v. Geppert

470 Md. 28 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jul 27, 2020

Geppert had not established that he had satisfied that requirement, he failed to meet the threshold for mandamus relief. … A poorly worded form cannot override the clearly-stated intent of the Legislature.