Case law

PG DOCTORS'HOSP. v. HSCR Comm'n

302 Md. 193 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jan 16, 1985

However, there is a clearly stated administrative remedy for this purpose, that is, to request a permanent rate change under § 19-219(a). … These rates are clearly far in excess of reasonable rates justified by the evidence and have been in effect since September 1, 1982 by operation of law. "...

Howard Research & Development Corp. v. Howard County

46 Md. App. 498 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Sep 8, 1980

Article 25A, § 5 (U) empowers charter counties to enact local laws establishing a county board of appeals. … In determining that a planning commission was better qualified than a board of adjustment to handle large scale planning decisions, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania relied on the expertise of Professor Krasnowiecki of the

Pennington v. Pennington

3 L.R.A. 816 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Mar 27, 1889

The simple fact that the devise over was to a party in esse for life, was not sufficient, as the law stood at that time, to qualify the general rule of construction ; for the settled rule of construction in this State is, … Clearly not.

United States v. Stewart

213 F. Supp. 497 · District Court, D. Maryland · Jan 18, 1963

The range of review is the narrowest known to the law. * * * The ‘clearly erroneous’ rule applied in equity appeals has no place here, nor even the ‘substantial evidence’ rule of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C.A … Of the authorities relied upon by the -defendant to establish his innocence, principal reliance is placed upon Wiggins v.

Western Maryland Tidewater Railroad v. Mayor of Baltimore

106 Md. 561 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Nov 13, 1907

is actually made land, wharves, permanently filled in with earth, and the like,” to use the language of his brief, and we are of the opinion that such is the law, unless of course the provisions of a particular charter clearly … Rep. 1016, it was said that "The Century Dictionary defines a pier to be ‘projecting quay, wharf, or other landing place;’ and, without some qualifying adjective this is the ordinary meaning of the word.

Meanor v. State

134 Md. App. 72 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Sep 7, 2000

Instead, the State charged the defendant with driving while intoxicated in a way which clearly appeared to exclude the lesser charge. Id. at 415, 578 A.2d 220 . … As the State correctly points out, the “mere possibility that an offender might qualify to participate in the Ignition Interlock System Program” is a privilege or a bonus, not a sanction.

Coates v. DPSCS

District Court, D. Maryland · Jul 29, 2019

Eleventh Amendment Immunity The State Defendants argue that DPSCS, as an agency of the State of Maryland is immune from suit in federal court under the Eleventh Amendment and Warden … While the State of Maryland has waived its sovereign immunity for certain types of cases brought in state courts, see Md.

Attorney Grievance Commission v. Kerpelman

292 Md. 228 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Dec 29, 1981

The evidence was clearly sufficient to support his conclusions. … In the instant case Jackson Brodsky, a practicing attorney who was qualified as an expert in domestic relations matters at the disciplinary hearing, testified that in his opinion Kerpelman’s fee was clearly excessive.

Estate of DaMon R. Fisher v. City of Annapolis

District Court, D. Maryland · May 11, 2023

Sovereign Immunity The court must first address HUD’s argument that sovereign immunity precludes the City’s suit. … Even if sovereign immunity precludes the court from considering the City’s statutory claims (Counts I and II), the City’s constitutional claim is clearly reviewable under the Larson-Dugan doctrine (Count III).

In Re Julianna B.

177 Md. App. 547 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Dec 5, 2007

None of the circuit court’s factual findings was clearly erroneous. … that the Respondent possessed a qualifying weapon on public school property!)]”

Pallace v. Inter City Land Co.

239 Md. 549 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jul 29, 1965

While the judgment of a lower court on the evidence will not be set aside unless clearly erroneous, that phase of the rule is limited to the court's decision on the evidence. Maryland Rule 886. … In the case at bar, I think the applicant did establish from the evidence that Parcel B may not be used for the erection and sale of individual homes.

Bergeman v. State Roads Commission

218 Md. 137 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Sep 25, 2001

Truitt, who, after qualifying as a real estate expert, estimated the value at $26,700. … From this it would seem to be clearly prejudicial to the appellants' cause.

Maryland Overpak Corporation v. Mayor of Baltimore

395 Md. 16 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Oct 16, 2006

Those cases apply plain meaning analysis to determine if the change, nonetheless, effected a clearly substantive change. Md. Div. of Labor and Indus. v. … Second, if the governmental act in question involves a quasi-judicial process, the inquiry moves to the question of whether it qualifies as a “zoning action.”

Beasley v. State

271 Md. 521 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · May 1, 1974

The State called Julie Grabstein as a rebuttal witness under a grant of immunity from prosecution. Her attorney was present in court. He was initially assigned by the Public Defender to represent Beasley. … The Court there reversed the refusal by a trial court to consider certain evidence in connection with a motion for a new trial, a matter clearly within the sound discretion of the trial court.

Pleasant v. Pleasant

97 Md. App. 711 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Oct 27, 1993

From the testimony of an economist who qualified as an expert in valuing pensions, the trial judge determined that the marital portion of appellant’s pension had a present value of $167,907, and that the marital portion of … Choice of Disposition On two occasions during the trial, the trial judge presented appellant with a choice of the method of payment to be established.

Gemini Insurance Co. v. Earth Treks, Inc.

260 F. Supp. 3d 467 · District Court, D. Maryland · May 12, 2017

App. 2000) ] In other words, an insurer may utilize uncontroverted extrinsic evidence from the underlying lawsuit if such evidence clearly establishes that the suit’s allegations are beyond the scope of coverage. Id. … In this case, Gemini does not rely on any different version of the complaint in the Fabian Suit, nor has Gemini sought to introduce any “uncontroverted” extrinsic evidence that “clearly establishes that the, suit’s allegations

Bey v. State

140 Md. App. 607 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Sep 26, 2001

The burden, of course, is on appellant’s counsel to state clearly what the problem is and to state clearly what precise instruction is being requested. … However, in murder, such conduct demonstrates the degree of consciousness of risk that establishes depraved heart murder, which is a general intent crime.

The Emma Giles

15 F. Supp. 502 · District Court, D. Maryland · Jun 26, 1936

It was evidently intended to comply with the Ship Mortgage Act, and in article III, § 14, the mortgagor expressly covenanted “to comply with and satisfy the requirements of the Ship Mortgage Act of 1920, so as to establish … No point is made that the libellant corporation is not a qualified trustee or mortgagee under the Act.

Laurel Racing Ass'n v. Video Lottery Facility Location Commission

409 Md. 445 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jul 20, 2009

The Circuit Court rendered a written opinion which qualified as a declaratory judgment. … Section 9-lA-36(o) of the State Government Article is clearly a “special form of remedy for a specific type of case” within the meaning of the Declaratory Judgments Act.

Warfield-Dorsey Co. v. THE TRAVELERS CASUALTY & SURETY CO.

66 F. Supp. 2d 681 · District Court, D. Maryland · Oct 4, 1999

Particularly in a case where all of the claims in the underlying action have been settled but only some of them qualify for coverage, many more factors must be considered by a court in determining whether the insurer has … As discussed herein, this contention ignores applicable authority and is clearly wrong. 3 .