Case law

Burns v. State

149 Md. App. 526 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Feb 27, 2003

That would, ipso facto, qualify for what the plurality opinion of this Court in Smith v. State, 145 Md.App. 400, 421-25 , 805 A.2d 1108 (2002), referred to as “the greater nexus.” … That is clearly enough of a mens rea to satisfy the watered-down animus furandi of theft.

Waterkeeper Alliance, Inc. v. Maryland Department of Agriculture

439 Md. 262 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jul 18, 2014

Requiring cases to have reached final judgment before permitting appeal reflects Maryland’s long-established policy against piecemeal appeals. See, e.g., Medical Mut. Liability Ins. Soc. of Maryland v. B. … In other words, for an order to qualify as a final judgment, it must adjudicate each and every claim and be reflected in a docket entry. Schuele v.

Harris v. State

406 Md. 115 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Sep 11, 2008

The jurors and any alternates to be impanelled shall be called from the qualified jurors remaining on the list in the order previously designated by the court and shall be sworn. … The trial tran *123 script clearly shows that the jury was not sworn before the jurors were dismissed for lunch.

Jacobs v. Adams

66 Md. App. 779 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Mar 13, 1986

It is only after the rights of parties have been established by the laws of the situs that the forum may determine how those rights shall be exercised. … It did not restrict, limit, define, qualify, or otherwise simply modify the cause of action but declared it to be wholly unavailable.

Lynch v. The Mayor and City Council of Ocean City

District Court, D. Maryland · Aug 11, 2025

Additionally, summary judgment is warranted if the non-moving party fails to provide evidence that establishes an essential element of the case. Id. at 352. … And Plaintiff clearly does not identify any Ocean City policy contributing to Plaintiff’s arrest or charges.

Stein v. Pfizer Inc.

228 Md. App. 72 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · May 31, 2016

The Baltimore City circuit court resolved this issue, by granting summary judgment in favor of Pfizer, after determining that it did not qualify as an “apparent manufacturer.” … Then, observing that the “aim of the [‘apparent manufacturer’] doctrine clearly was to provide a remedy for consumers injured by unsafe products,” an “objective [now] achieved by the doctrine of strict products liability,

Hastings v. PNC Bank, NA.

429 Md. 5 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Sep 27, 2012

Consequently, the assets of the Trust do not qualify for the exemption laid out in § 7-203(j). … It is clearly intended to be the sole provision governing deferred payment, never sharing that duty with § 7-210(a)(2).

Shpigel v. White

357 Md. 117 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Dec 10, 1999

The original or a duplicate of a record of regularly conducted business activity, within the scope of Rule 5-803(b)(6), which the custodian or another qualified individual certifies (A) was made, at or near the time of the … Under the statute, and unlike the rule, no certification of the custodian is required to establish authenticity.

Wilson v. Maryland Department of the Environment

217 Md. App. 271 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · May 27, 2014

We note, however, that the default order, which he clearly received and was seeking to vacate, stated that he had been found to have violated the lead paint laws. … -8-  The Complaint is clearly written and sets forth the time periods to file a request for a hearing. [Mr.

Horsley v. Radisi

132 Md. App. 1 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Apr 28, 2000

Such expenses clearly do not have the character of ordinary extracurricular activities that are otherwise included in the basic child support obligation. … In this case, we found virtually no evidence, other than the mother’s testimony, establishing that the two older children are intellectually “gifted.”

Ochse v. Henry

216 Md. App. 439 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Feb 25, 2014

Success on the breach of contract claim against the Henrys – indeed, success on any aspect of the post-mediation appeal – was purely academic in all respects but one: it meant that the Ochses would qualify as the "prevailing … An award of attorney's fees will not be disturbed unless the court "exercised [its] discretion arbitrarily or [its] judgment was clearly wrong." Danziger v. Danziger, 208 Md. 469, 475, 118 A.2d 653, 656 (1955).

Hammond v. Love

187 Md. 138 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Oct 9, 1946

No such assumption, however, could qualify the peremptory requirement, in Section 73, that the judges “shall reject” uninitialed ballots. … If this long-established safeguard has become unnecessary, it is not for this Couit to change or abolish it.

Totten

District Court, D. Maryland · Oct 24, 2025

But on March 7, 2025, they added a count entitled, “Maryland Civil Rights,” (Count IV), in which they allege deprivation of “existing and clearly established rights, privileges, and immunities secured to them … Defendants respond that, even though Count IV clearly brings state constitutional claims, the cause of action “necessarily raises substantial federal issues.”

Butler v. State

335 Md. 238 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jun 27, 1994

Each could well qualify as a separate crime.” (Emphasis added). Butler, 91 Md.App. at 551 , 605 A.2d at 204 . See also Eiland v. … Accordingly, a jury’s failure to agree, which results in a mistrial, does not establish any facts, and thus cannot establish facts inconsistent with those established by its verdicts of acquittal.”

Lee v. Foxwell

District Court, D. Maryland · Oct 31, 2019

wrongdoing; (4) no First Amendment violation occurred; (5) defendants are entitled to qualified immunity; (6) no due process violation occurred based on a violation of DPSCS’s policies and procedures; (7) the consumption … The DPSCS has an established ARP for use by Maryland State prisoners for “inmate complaint resolution.”

Surkovich v. Doub

258 Md. 263 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · May 14, 1970

It does *267 not clearly appear upon which ground the board and the court rested their respective opinions. … Klaus was qualified as an expert in real estate, being a realtor and real estate appraiser.

Brathwaite v. Georgiades

District Court, D. Maryland · Dec 12, 2024

Brathwaite) established probable cause that a second-degree assault had occurred. These facts established probable cause sufficient to support the arrest. … The Court need not reach Defendants’ alternative argument that they are entitled to qualified immunity.

In Re Nicole B.

410 Md. 33 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jul 28, 2009

Nicole was potty trained; her immunizations were updated, and she also attended therapy sessions. Sometime in March or April 2006, John lost his housing and was staying with Wendy and Tommy. … The record in this case establishes that the Department offered numerous services to both John B. and Wendy B.

Roes v. State

236 Md. App. 569 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Apr 4, 2018

A vessel, it’s clearly not adrift. The testimony is that this is tied to the dock. … And, “I want you to really think about how those pictures qualifies as abandoned vessels that are being disposed of as litter in the water, in Caroline County.”

Zadnik v. Ambinder

Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · May 23, 2023

“Words in praesenti sufficient to establish a definite agreement to marry usually are required to establish a common law marriage.” Giant Eagle v. Workers’ Comp. … Zadnik clearly stated in both his affidavit and his answers to interrogatories that Ms.