Case law

Wiggins v. State

324 Md. 551 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Nov 8, 1991

He claims that this opinion was clearly material and would have produced an acquittal since the outside limit of her range established that the victim was alive after he came into possession of her property. … Korell changed her opinion once prior to the trial, and the defense had ample time to, and did, secure its own qualified expert testimony on this matter.

Caldes v. Elm Street Development

415 Md. 122 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jul 22, 2010

To qualify for a variance to the Critical Area criteria, an applicant must meet each and every one of the variance provisions. See, id., Section 8-1808(d)(4)(ii). … The Board’s comprehensive opinion, from which we have quoted extensively, does not contain any clearly erroneous findings of fact.

Clark v. McLaughlin

District Court, D. Maryland · Aug 29, 2019

under a theory of supervisory liability under § 1983; and (3) Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. … The MRI report clearly stated that Clark’s rotator cuff was intact. According to Dr.

Pearlstein v. State

76 Md. App. 507 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Sep 29, 1988

The evidence in this case clearly established that the appellant and Jeffrey A. Levitt were partners and accomplices in *519 a common scheme to steal from Old Court. … We are persuaded that Old Court had a sufficient interest in the money to qualify as an “owner” or victim within the contemplation of the Consolidated Theft Statute.

Horton v. Horton

158 Md. 626 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Mar 12, 1930

She qualified as administratrix, and proceeded to administer the estate. … But clearly there is no such analogy.

Parker v. State

365 Md. 299 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Aug 21, 2001

The statements, the defendant asserts, did not qualify as excited utterances because the officer had no knowledge of the declarants’ whereabouts at the time of the shooting and could not, therefore, establish that the women … Turning to the personal knowledge requirement, the content of the statements and the surrounding circumstances clearly *316 show that the declarants personally observed the shooting. See State v.

Attorney Grievance Comm'n of Md. v. Maldonado

463 Md. 11 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Mar 6, 2019

Maldonado contends that she clearly disclosed that she was representing Ms. Duren in a legal matter and that she clearly stated she was an environmental attorney. … Maldonado’s conduct does not qualify as ghostwriting nor does it fall under the scope of Rule 1.2. 5 The hearing judge also found sufficient evidence for a Rule 4.4(a) violation, however, as described earlier, we concluded

Johnson v. State

9 Md. App. 327 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Apr 14, 1970

State, 103 Md. 17 , adopted this rule of evidence but qualified it by stating at 103 Md. 20 , “a foundation must first be laid, by proof, sufficient in the opinion of the judge, to establish, prima facie, the fact of conspiracy … The testimony of an accomplice is clearly admissible to prove a conspiracy, Foster v.

Total Audio-Visual Systems, Inc. v. Department of Labor

360 Md. 387 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Aug 25, 2000

An otherwise qualified employee, however, is entitled to benefits if he becomes unemployed through no fault of his or her own. … It is apparent to me that the clause is not clearly unambiguous.

Williamson v. Morton

2 Md. Ch. 94 · High Court of Chancery of Maryland · Mar 15, 1851

Williamson her sole executor, who duly qualified as such. Upon the bill of Charles A. … But although the account is in this respect clearly erroneous and prejudicial to the legatees : still it is most plausibly urged, that as Mrs.

Limouze v. MM & P. MARITIME ADV., TRAIN. & ED. S. PRO.

397 F. Supp. 784 · District Court, D. Maryland · Jun 10, 1975

Maritime Advancement, Training, Education and Safety *786 Program [MATES Program] was established pursuant to an Agreement and Declaration of Trust, dated January 6, 1967 (paper 12, Exh. A). … Where a trustee in the administration of the trust makes a contract with a third person, the trustee is personally liable on the contract unless such liability is clearly excluded in the contract.

Wash. Post v. McManus

355 F. Supp. 3d 272 · District Court, D. Maryland · Jan 3, 2019

Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. establishes the familiar requirements for a preliminary injunction. … The Court may grant the motion "only if the moving party clearly establishes entitlement to the relief sought." Di Biase v. SPX Corp. , 872 F.3d 224 , 230 (4th Cir. 2017). A.

Mitchell v. Singstad

177 F. Supp. 376 · District Court, D. Maryland · Sep 28, 1959

Singstad & Baillie were referred to as the “Contracting Engineer”, a misleading term, but their function was clearly stated as follows: “In the performance of the Work, the Contraet *379 3ng Engineer is the direct representative … The Court said: “Whether, prior to Vollmer, this project, physically isolated by considerable distance from the established facilities of which it was to be a functional part, would have been-considered an improvement of

Montgomery County Ass'n of Realtors, Inc. v. Realty Photo Master Corp.

783 F. Supp. 952 · District Court, D. Maryland · Jan 24, 1992

Standard for issuing a preliminary injunction Governed under Fed.R.Civ.P. 65, a preliminary injunction is “an extraordinary remedy to be granted only if the moving party clearly establishes entitlement to relief sought.” … those real estate brokers who failed to qualify under them.

Rowley v. Mayor of Baltimore

305 Md. 456 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Mar 5, 1986

Conversely, we see no valid reason why Shelby should be subjected to more liability simply because it engaged the services of a qualified independent contractor. … The negligence of FMI was clearly not “casual” or collateral to the contemplated risk.

Maryland Attorney General Opinion 110OAG110

Maryland Attorney General Reports · Dec 23, 2025

See id.; see also CS § 11-201(b)(1) (authorizing charter counties to appoint “a qualified individual as managing official of the local correctional facility” (emphasis added)). … Admittedly, the text of the statute no longer says this as clearly as it once did.

Hoffman v. United Services Automobile Ass'n

309 Md. 167 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Apr 1, 1987

Power Co., 305 Md. 369, 373 , 504 A.2d 632 (1986) (“Clearly, insurers are free to *178 provide more than the minimum benefits.”) … Section 541(f) clearly allows “excess uninsured” or “under-insured” motorist coverage in separate policies issued by the same or another insurer.

Fair v. State

198 Md. App. 1 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Mar 30, 2011

In its analysis, the Holland Court explored the definition of “assertion,” id. at 543-44 , 713 A.2d 364 : To qualify as hearsay, the words recounted in court must, for starters, constitute an assertion or statement of a fact … For an out-of-court utterance to qualify as an assertion, it generally must be in the indicative or declarative mood, rather than in the interrogative mood, the imperative mood, or the subjunctive mood.

Forbes v. General Counsel

District Court, D. Maryland · Jul 28, 2023

The Court may “pierce the veil of the complaint’s factual allegations and dismiss those claims whose factual contentions are clearly baseless,” such as when “claims describ[e] fantastic or delusional scenarios.” … The party filing suit in this Court bears the burden of establishing the Court’s subject matter jurisdiction. Robb Evans & Assocs., LLC v.

Massey v. State

173 Md. App. 94 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Mar 7, 2007

The issue before us, therefore, is whether the information supplied by Griffith to Marzec was sufficient to establish probable cause for Massey’s arrest. … To suggest that appellant ought to bear the burden of establishing useful information from a report with which he has not been provided is, at best, disingenuous.