combination factors in Maryland

2004It said: While courts generally consider a combination of factors, circumstances that have been found to constitute good cause fit into several broad categories: [1] excusable neglect or mistake (generally determined in reference to a reasonably prudent person standard), [2] serious physical or mental injury and/or location out-of-state, [3] the inability to retain counsel in cases involving complex litigation, and [4] ignorance of the statutory notice requirement.” *486 Id. at 272 , 761 A.2d 56 (footnotes and internal citations omitted).

2004It said: While courts generally consider a combination of factors, circumstances that have been found to constitute good cause fit into several broad categories: [1] excusable neglect or mistake (generally determined in reference to a reasonably prudent person standard), [2] serious physical or mental injury and/or location out-of-state, [3] the inability to retain counsel in cases involving complex litigation, and [4] ignorance of the statutory notice requirement.” *486 Id. at 272 , 761 A.2d 56 (footnotes and internal citations omitted).

2005Friel Co., v. New Jersey Turnpike Auth., 73 N.J. 107 , 373 A.2d 364 (1977); Kleinke, 371 A.2d at 788 ; the inability to retain counsel in cases involving complex litigation, see, e.g., Torres v. Jersey City Med.

2005Friel Co., v. New Jersey Turnpike Auth., 73 N.J. 107 , 373 A.2d 364 (1977); Kleinke, 371 A.2d at 788 ; the inability to retain counsel in cases involving complex litigation, see, e.g., Torres v. Jersey City Med.

2005While courts generally consider a combination of factors, circumstances that have been found to constitute good cause fit into several broad categories: excusable neglect or mistake (generally determined in reference to a reasonably prudent person standard), see, e.g., Viles v. State, 66 Cal.2d 24 , 56 Cal.Rptr. 666 , 423 P.2d 818, 821-22 (1967); Black v. Los Angeles County, 12 Cal.App.3d 670, 674-75 , 91 Cal.Rptr. 104 (1970); Kleinke v. Ocean City, 147 N.J.Super. 575 , 371 A.2d 785 (1977); serious physical or mental injury and/or location out-of-state, see, e.g., Silva v. New York, 246 A.D.2d

2005While courts generally consider a combination of factors, circumstances that have been found to constitute good cause fit into several broad categories: excusable neglect or mistake (generally determined in reference to a reasonably prudent person standard), see, e.g., Viles v. State, 66 Cal.2d 24 , 56 Cal.Rptr. 666 , 423 P.2d 818, 821-22 (1967); Black v. Los Angeles County, 12 Cal.App.3d 670, 674-75 , 91 Cal.Rptr. 104 (1970); Kleinke v. Ocean City, 147 N.J.Super. 575 , 371 A.2d 785 (1977); serious physical or mental injury and/or location out-of-state, see, e.g., Silva v. New York, 246 A.D.2d

2005While courts generally consider a combination of factors, circumstances that have been found to constitute good cause fit into several broad categories: excusable neglect or mistake (generally determined in reference to a reasonably prudent person standard), see, e.g., Viles v. State, 66 Cal.2d 24 , 56 Cal.Rptr. 666 , 423 P.2d 818, 821-22 (1967); Black v. Los Angeles County, 12 Cal.App.3d 670, 674-75 , 91 Cal.Rptr. 104 (1970); Kleinke v. Ocean City, 147 N.J.Super. 575 , 371 A.2d 785 (1977); serious physical or mental injury and/or location out-of-state, see, e.g., Silva v. New York, 246 A.D.2d

2005While courts generally consider a combination of factors, circumstances that have been found to constitute good cause fit into several broad categories: excusable neglect or mistake (generally determined in reference to a reasonably prudent person standard), see, e.g., Viles v. State, 66 Cal.2d 24 , 56 Cal.Rptr. 666 , 423 P.2d 818, 821-22 (1967); Black v. Los Angeles County, 12 Cal.App.3d 670, 674-75 , 91 Cal.Rptr. 104 (1970); Kleinke v. Ocean City, 147 N.J.Super. 575 , 371 A.2d 785 (1977); serious physical or mental injury and/or location out-of-state, see, e.g., Silva v. New York, 246 A.D.2d

2025As we recently observed, the summary ejectment action “is unlike any other litigation procedure in Maryland[,]” due to a combination of factors, including, among others, (1) “its speed (trial must be held within six days of filing absent unanimous agreement to postpone further),” (2) “the absence of a requirement of personal service,” (3) “the lack of opportunity for pretrial discovery,” (4) “the allowance for one side to be represented in court by non-lawyers,” and (5) “the short window for appeal (four days)[.]” Westminster Mgmt., LLC, 486 Md. at 624 .

2012Id. at 511 , 970 A.2d 894 .

2012Id. at 511 , 970 A.2d 894 .

2004In a footnote in Heron, 361 Md. at 272 n. 13, 761 A.2d 56 , the Heron Court cited our decision in Williams v. Montgomery County, 123 Md.App. 119 , 716 A.2d 1100 (1998), for the proposition that this Court “has specifically rejected ignorance of the law requiring notice as good cause.” Thereafter, in Hargrove, 146 Md.App. at 467 , 807 A.2d 149 , we discussed Heron , noting that the Heron Court “reaffirmed that Maryland has specifically rejected the ignorance of the law requirement as good cause.” In the consolidated case of Moore v. Norouzi, 371 Md. at 159, 807 A.2d 632 , the claimants were inj

2004In a footnote in Heron, 361 Md. at 272 n. 13, 761 A.2d 56 , the Heron Court cited our decision in Williams v. Montgomery County, 123 Md.App. 119 , 716 A.2d 1100 (1998), for the proposition that this Court “has specifically rejected ignorance of the law requiring notice as good cause.” Thereafter, in Hargrove, 146 Md.App. at 467 , 807 A.2d 149 , we discussed Heron , noting that the Heron Court “reaffirmed that Maryland has specifically rejected the ignorance of the law requirement as good cause.” In the consolidated case of Moore v. Norouzi, 371 Md. at 159, 807 A.2d 632 , the claimants were inj

2004In a footnote in Heron, 361 Md. at 272 n. 13, 761 A.2d 56 , the Heron Court cited our decision in Williams v. Montgomery County, 123 Md.App. 119 , 716 A.2d 1100 (1998), for the proposition that this Court “has specifically rejected ignorance of the law requiring notice as good cause.” Thereafter, in Hargrove, 146 Md.App. at 467 , 807 A.2d 149 , we discussed Heron , noting that the Heron Court “reaffirmed that Maryland has specifically rejected the ignorance of the law requirement as good cause.” In the consolidated case of Moore v. Norouzi, 371 Md. at 159, 807 A.2d 632 , the claimants were inj

2004In a footnote in Heron, 361 Md. at 272 n. 13, 761 A.2d 56 , the Heron Court cited our decision in Williams v. Montgomery County, 123 Md.App. 119 , 716 A.2d 1100 (1998), for the proposition that this Court “has specifically rejected ignorance of the law requiring notice as good cause.” Thereafter, in Hargrove, 146 Md.App. at 467 , 807 A.2d 149 , we discussed Heron , noting that the Heron Court “reaffirmed that Maryland has specifically rejected the ignorance of the law requirement as good cause.” In the consolidated case of Moore v. Norouzi, 371 Md. at 159, 807 A.2d 632 , the claimants were inj

2003We recognize that in Nathan v. State, 370 Md. 648 , 805 A.2d 1086 (2002), the Court of Appeals noted that the presence of an “overwhelming” odor of an air freshener can be included in the combination of factors that justify an investigative detention.

2003We recognize that in Nathan v. State, 370 Md. 648 , 805 A.2d 1086 (2002), the Court of Appeals noted that the presence of an “overwhelming” odor of an air freshener can be included in the combination of factors that justify an investigative detention.

2000While courts generally consider a combination of factors, circumstances that have been found to constitute good cause fit into several broad categories: excusable neglect or mistake (generally determined in reference to a reasonably prudent person standard), [11] see, e.g., Viles, 56 Cal.Rptr. 666 , 423 P.2d at 821-22 ; Black v. Los Angeles County, 12 Cal.App.3d 670 , 91 Cal.Rptr. 104, 107-08 (1970); Kleinke v. Ocean City, 147 N.J.Super. 575 , 371 A.2d 785 (App.Div. 1977); serious physical or mental injury and/or location out-of-state, see, e.g., Silva v. New York, 246 A.D.2d 465 , 668 N.Y.S.2

2000While courts generally consider a combination of factors, circumstances that have been found to constitute good cause fit into several broad categories: excusable neglect or mistake (generally determined in reference to a reasonably prudent person standard), 11 see, e.g., Viles, 56 Cal.Rptr. 666 , 423 P.2d at 821-22 ; Black v. Los Angeles County, 12 Cal.App.3d 670 , 91 Cal.Rptr. 104, 107-08 (1970); Kleinke v. Ocean City, 147 N.J.Super. 575 , 371 A.2d 785 (App.Div.1977); serious physical or mental injury and/or location out-of-state, see, e.g., Silva v. New York, 246 A.D.2d 465 , 668 N.Y.S.2d 1

2000While courts generally consider a combination of factors, circumstances that have been found to constitute good cause fit into several broad categories: excusable neglect or mistake (generally determined in reference to a reasonably prudent person standard), [11] see, e.g., Viles, 56 Cal.Rptr. 666 , 423 P.2d at 821-22 ; Black v. Los Angeles County, 12 Cal.App.3d 670 , 91 Cal.Rptr. 104, 107-08 (1970); Kleinke v. Ocean City, 147 N.J.Super. 575 , 371 A.2d 785 (App.Div. 1977); serious physical or mental injury and/or location out-of-state, see, e.g., Silva v. New York, 246 A.D.2d 465 , 668 N.Y.S.2

2000While courts generally consider a combination of factors, circumstances that have been found to constitute good cause fit into several broad categories: excusable neglect or mistake (generally determined in reference to a reasonably prudent person standard), 11 see, e.g., Viles, 56 Cal.Rptr. 666 , 423 P.2d at 821-22 ; Black v. Los Angeles County, 12 Cal.App.3d 670 , 91 Cal.Rptr. 104, 107-08 (1970); Kleinke v. Ocean City, 147 N.J.Super. 575 , 371 A.2d 785 (App.Div.1977); serious physical or mental injury and/or location out-of-state, see, e.g., Silva v. New York, 246 A.D.2d 465 , 668 N.Y.S.2d 1

2000While courts generally consider a combination of factors, circumstances that have been found to constitute good cause fit into several broad categories: excusable neglect or mistake (generally determined in reference to a reasonably prudent person standard), [11] see, e.g., Viles, 56 Cal.Rptr. 666 , 423 P.2d at 821-22 ; Black v. Los Angeles County, 12 Cal.App.3d 670 , 91 Cal.Rptr. 104, 107-08 (1970); Kleinke v. Ocean City, 147 N.J.Super. 575 , 371 A.2d 785 (App.Div. 1977); serious physical or mental injury and/or location out-of-state, see, e.g., Silva v. New York, 246 A.D.2d 465 , 668 N.Y.S.2

2000While courts generally consider a combination of factors, circumstances that have been found to constitute good cause fit into several broad categories: excusable neglect or mistake (generally determined in reference to a reasonably prudent person standard), 11 see, e.g., Viles, 56 Cal.Rptr. 666 , 423 P.2d at 821-22 ; Black v. Los Angeles County, 12 Cal.App.3d 670 , 91 Cal.Rptr. 104, 107-08 (1970); Kleinke v. Ocean City, 147 N.J.Super. 575 , 371 A.2d 785 (App.Div.1977); serious physical or mental injury and/or location out-of-state, see, e.g., Silva v. New York, 246 A.D.2d 465 , 668 N.Y.S.2d 1

2000While courts generally consider a combination of factors, circumstances that have been found to constitute good cause fit into several broad categories: excusable neglect or mistake (generally determined in reference to a reasonably prudent person standard), 11 see, e.g., Viles, 56 Cal.Rptr. 666 , 423 P.2d at 821-22 ; Black v. Los Angeles County, 12 Cal.App.3d 670 , 91 Cal.Rptr. 104, 107-08 (1970); Kleinke v. Ocean City, 147 N.J.Super. 575 , 371 A.2d 785 (App.Div.1977); serious physical or mental injury and/or location out-of-state, see, e.g., Silva v. New York, 246 A.D.2d 465 , 668 N.Y.S.2d 1

2000While courts generally consider a combination of factors, circumstances that have been found to constitute good cause fit into several broad categories: excusable neglect or mistake (generally determined in reference to a reasonably prudent person standard), 11 see, e.g., Viles, 56 Cal.Rptr. 666 , 423 P.2d at 821-22 ; Black v. Los Angeles County, 12 Cal.App.3d 670 , 91 Cal.Rptr. 104, 107-08 (1970); Kleinke v. Ocean City, 147 N.J.Super. 575 , 371 A.2d 785 (App.Div.1977); serious physical or mental injury and/or location out-of-state, see, e.g., Silva v. New York, 246 A.D.2d 465 , 668 N.Y.S.2d 1

1995Batson, 476 U.S. at 96 , 106 S.Ct. at 1723 , 90 L.Ed.2d at 87 -88 (quoting Avery v. Georgia, 345 U.S. 559, 562 , 73 S.Ct. 891, 892 , 97 L.Ed. 1244 , 1247-1248 (1953)) (citations omitted).

1995Batson, 476 U.S. at 96 , 106 S.Ct. at 1723 , 90 L.Ed.2d at 87 -88 (quoting Avery v. Georgia, 345 U.S. 559, 562 , 73 S.Ct. 891, 892 , 97 L.Ed. 1244 , 1247-1248 (1953)) (citations omitted).

1990Significantly, Stanley v. State, at 313 Md. 72 , 542 A.2d 1267 , based its conclusion that a prima facie case of discrimination had been established not upon the single factor that the State had used 80 per cent of its challenges to strike black prospective jurors but upon the combination of factors that the State had "used 80 percent of its strikes to remove blacks who constituted less than 25 percent of the venire." 6 .

1988Id. at 96 , 106 S.Ct. at 1723, 90 L.Ed.2d at 87-88 [citations omitted]. 6 *60 The Supreme Court cited Texas Dept. of Community Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248 , 101 S.Ct. 1089 , 67 L.Ed.2d 207 (1981), and other Title VII 7 cases such as McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 , 93 S.Ct. 1817 , 36 L.Ed.2d 668 (1973), and United States Postal Serv.

1988Id. at 96 , 106 S.Ct. at 1723, 90 L.Ed.2d at 87-88 [citations omitted]. 6 *60 The Supreme Court cited Texas Dept. of Community Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248 , 101 S.Ct. 1089 , 67 L.Ed.2d 207 (1981), and other Title VII 7 cases such as McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 , 93 S.Ct. 1817 , 36 L.Ed.2d 668 (1973), and United States Postal Serv.

1988Id. at 96 , 106 S.Ct. at 1723, 90 L.Ed.2d at 87-88 [citations omitted]. 6 *60 The Supreme Court cited Texas Dept. of Community Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248 , 101 S.Ct. 1089 , 67 L.Ed.2d 207 (1981), and other Title VII 7 cases such as McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 , 93 S.Ct. 1817 , 36 L.Ed.2d 668 (1973), and United States Postal Serv.

1988Id. at 96 , 106 S.Ct. at 1723, 90 L.Ed.2d at 87-88 [citations omitted]. 6 *60 The Supreme Court cited Texas Dept. of Community Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248 , 101 S.Ct. 1089 , 67 L.Ed.2d 207 (1981), and other Title VII 7 cases such as McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 , 93 S.Ct. 1817 , 36 L.Ed.2d 668 (1973), and United States Postal Serv.

1984In Parke, Davis the Court held ( 362 U.S. at 44 , 80 S.Ct. at 511 ): “When the manufacturer’s actions ... go beyond mere announcement of his policy and the simple refusal to deal, and he employs other means which effect adherence to his resale prices ... he has put together a combination in violation of the Sherman Act.” See Quality Disc.

1984In Parke, Davis the Court held ( 362 U.S. at 44 , 80 S.Ct. at 511 ): “When the manufacturer’s actions ... go beyond mere announcement of his policy and the simple refusal to deal, and he employs other means which effect adherence to his resale prices ... he has put together a combination in violation of the Sherman Act.” See Quality Disc.

1984Tires v. Firestone Tire, supra, 282 Md. at 14-16 , 382 A.2d 867 , and cases there cited.

1984Tires v. Firestone Tire, supra, 282 Md. at 14-16 , 382 A.2d 867 , and cases there cited.

1965For example, in Mercer v. State, 237 Md. 479, 206 A. 2d 797 (1965), a confession was held improperly admitted because the testimony of the appellant that he was physically mistreated by two detectives was not contradicted by either of the persons named.

1965For example, in Mercer v. State, 237 Md. 479, 206 A. 2d 797 (1965), a confession was held improperly admitted because the testimony of the appellant that he was physically mistreated by two detectives was not contradicted by either of the persons named.