34 Md. App.
Volume 34 — Maryland Appellate Reports
71 opinions
- 34 Md. App. 1In Re Appeal No. 101, Term 1976 (1976)
- 34 Md. App. 14Ridge Lumber Co. v. Overmont Development (1976)
- 34 Md. App. 18Kerpelman v. Barrash (1976)
- 34 Md. App. 25Gardenvillage Realty Corp. v. Russo (1976)
- 34 Md. App. 41Ryan v. Brady (1976)
- 34 Md. App. 60Pyle v. State (1976)
- 34 Md. App. 65Nasim v. State (1976)
- 34 Md. App. 79Tomas v. Tomas (1976)
- 34 Md. App. 82Hawkins v. State (1976)
- 34 Md. App. 93Paul v. Lyons (1976)
- 34 Md. App. 99Terry v. State (1976)
- 34 Md. App. 108Jeandell v. State (1976)
- 34 Md. App. 113Resetar v. State Board of Education (1976)
- 34 Md. App. 115Weitz v. Marram (1976)
- 34 Md. App. 124Conner v. State (1976)
- 34 Md. App. 136State Department of Assessments & Taxation v. Clark (1976)
- 34 Md. App. 157Eaton v. Eaton (1976)
- 34 Md. App. 164Stevens v. State (1976)
- 34 Md. App. 173Daniels v. Superintendent, Clifton T. Perkins State Hospital (1976)
- 34 Md. App. 181Burka v. Patrick (1976)
- 34 Md. App. 189Weaver v. Prince George's County (1976)
- 34 Md. App. 206Williams v. State (1976)
- 34 Md. App. 217Sard v. Hardy (1976)
- 34 Md. App. 258Garland v. State (1976)
- 34 Md. App. 267Duncan v. State (1976)
- 34 Md. App. 279Creative Development Corp. v. Bond (1976)
<p>September Term, 1976.]</p>
- 34 Md. App. 286Ringgold v. State (1976)
- 34 Md. App. 294Wilson v. State (1976)
- 34 Md. App. 300State v. Crist (1976)
- 34 Md. App. 309Wright v. Trotta (1976)
- 34 Md. App. 324Riggs v. State (1976)
- 34 Md. App. 331Gooch v. State (1976)
- 34 Md. App. 340Madore v. Baltimore County (1976)
- 34 Md. App. 347Hershberger v. Hershberger (1976)
- 34 Md. App. 350Green v. Green (1976)
- 34 Md. App. 357Trovinger v. State (1977)
- 34 Md. App. 365Calhoun v. State (1977)
- 34 Md. App. 378Simpson v. State (1977)
- 34 Md. App. 384Eastgate Associates v. Apper (1977)
- 34 Md. App. 389Armes v. Cook (1977)
- 34 Md. App. 393State v. Stanley (1977)
- 34 Md. App. 399Robertson v. Shell Oil Co. (1977)
- 34 Md. App. 411Howard County v. Howard Research & Development Corp. (1977)
- 34 Md. App. 418Terrell v. State (1977)
- 34 Md. App. 430Rosado v. State (1977)
- 34 Md. App. 435Amabile v. Winkles (1977)
- 34 Md. App. 440In re Appeal No. 507 (1977)
- 34 Md. App. 446Cain v. State (1977)
- 34 Md. App. 454Covington v. State (1977)
- 34 Md. App. 470Plummer v. Waskey (1977)
- 34 Md. App. 487Commissioner, Baltimore City Police Department v. Cason (1977)
- 34 Md. App. 509Stone v. Stone (1977)
- 34 Md. App. 519Stonesifer v. State (1977)
- 34 Md. App. 525Dorsey v. State (1977)
- 34 Md. App. 538Jay v. Smith (1977)
- 34 Md. App. 547Blackwell v. State (1977)
- 34 Md. App. 571Walker v. Hall (1977)
- 34 Md. App. 593Bay State Insurance v. Hill (1977)
- 34 Md. App. 600Fritz v. Fritz (1977)
- 34 Md. App. 612Hines v. State (1977)
- 34 Md. App. 619National Union of Hospital & Health Care Employees v. Lafayette Square Nursing Center, Inc. (1977)
- 34 Md. App. 632Barnhart v. State (1977)
- 34 Md. App. 635White v. White (1977)
- 34 Md. App. 640Thompson v. Employment Security Administration (1977)
- 34 Md. App. 647Montgomery County v. Meany (1977)
- 34 Md. App. 654Pierce v. State (1977)
- 34 Md. App. 672Shaver v. Davis (1977)
- 34 Md. App. 679Heat Exchangers, Inc. v. Map Construction Corp. (1977)
UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODE — <italic>Failure To Deliver Contracted Goods</italic><italic>Because Of Commercial Impracticability — Occurrence Of</italic><italic>Intervening Contingency Within Meaning Of</italic> § <italic>2-615 Sufficient To</italic><italic>Prevent Delivery Of Goods — Requisite Proof Before Non-Delivery</italic><italic>May Be Excused — Burden Of Proof — Claim Of Strikes,</italic><italic>Necessary Price Increase And Threat Of Patent Infringement Suit</italic><italic>As Intervening Causes Preventing Non-Delivery Held Insufficiently</italic><italic>Supported By Evidence In Case — Similarly, There Was Not</italic><italic>Scintilla Of Evidence To Support Defense Of Commercial</italic><italic>Impracticability — Where Party, Although Acknowledging Prior</italic><italic>Parts Supply Difficulty, Not Only Failed To Provide An</italic><italic>Exculpatory Clause In Contract And Never Advised Purchaser That</italic><italic>Nonperformance Was Occasioned By Failure Of Presupposed</italic><italic>Conditions, But To Contrary, Persistently And Consistently Made</italic><italic>Assurances That Delivery Would Be Made, Its Performance Of</italic><italic>Contractual Obligations To Deliver Goods Found Not Excusable</italic><italic>Under Provisions Of</italic> § <italic>2-615 Of Act</italic>. pp. 684-685, 687-690 H.E.F.
- 34 Md. App. 691Sewell v. State (1977)
CRIMINAL LAW — EVIDENCE — <italic>Best Evidence Rule —</italic><italic>Non-Production Of Original Document — Secondary Evidence —</italic><italic>Admissibility Of — Before Secondary Evidence Is Admissible It</italic><italic>Must Be Shown That Original Was Lost Or Destroyed — Testimony</italic><italic>Of Officer Held Admissible Where It Tended To Explain</italic><italic>Non-Production Of Original Document And Secondly, As Evidence Of</italic><italic>Accused's Consciousness Of Guilt — Destruction Of Evidence By</italic><italic>Accused Recognized As Indicative Of Consciousness Of Guilt —</italic><italic>Testimony As to Conduct Of Accused With Regard To Disappearance</italic><italic>Of Document Clearly Admissible And Motion For Mistrial Held</italic><italic>Properly Denied — Instruction To Jury With Regard To Flight Of</italic><italic>Accused And Destruction Of Evidence Correct</italic>. pp. 694, 696 CRIMINAL LAW — TRIALS — <italic>Speedy Trial — Four-Factored</italic><italic>Balancing Test — Although Inaction Of Accused To Seek Speedy</italic><italic>Trial Of Itself Does Not Amount To Waiver Of Constitutional Right</italic><italic>Failure To Assert Right Entitled To Strong Evidentiary Weight In</italic><italic>Determining Whether Accused Was Deprived Of Right — Fault Found</italic><italic>Almost Entirely On Part Of Accused In Not Asserting Right To</italic><italic>Speedy Trial</italic>. pp. 696-697 SEARCHES AND SEIZURES — <italic>Sufficiency Of — Probable Cause —</italic><italic>Veracity Of Confidential Informant — Affidavit In Support Of</italic><italic>Warrant Held Sufficient To Satisfy Veracity Test As Enunciated In</italic><italic>Aguilar v. Texas</italic>. pp. 697-698 CRIMINAL LAW — TRIALS — <italic>Presence Of Accused At In-Chambers</italic><italic>Conference On Legal Motion — Where, As In Instant Case,</italic><italic>Chambers Conference Dealt With State's Motion In Limine</italic><italic>Requesting Identity Of Informant Not Be Disclosed It Was Not</italic><italic>Critical Stage Of Trial Warranting Accused's Presence</italic>. p. 698 H.E.F.
- 34 Md. App. 699Kassab v. Burkhardt (1977)
- 34 Md. App. 706Great Coastal Express, Inc. v. Schruefer (1977)