de novo standard in Maryland

2026When, as here, the ruling on appeal “‘involves an interpretation and application of Maryland statutory and case law, [we] must determine whether the [circuit] court’s conclusions are legally correct under a de novo standard of review.’” Id. (quoting Walter v. Gunter, 367 Md. 386, 392 (2002)); see also Wiggins v. Griner, 155 Md.

2026Where a judgment “involves an interpretation and application of Maryland statutory and case law, [an appellate court] must determine whether the lower court’s conclusions are ‘legally correct’ under a de novo standard of review.” Walter v. Gunter, 367 Md. 386, 392 (2002). 4 Treble damages are a legal remedy where the court will award the plaintiff three times the amount of actual damages.

2026App. 231, 243 (2012) (citing Moore v. State, 388 Md. 446, 453 (2005); Davis v. Slater, 383 Md. 599, 604 (2004)); see also Schisler v. State, 394 Md. 519, 535 (2006) (“[W]here an order involves an interpretation and application of Maryland constitutional, statutory or case law, our Court must determine whether the trial court’s conclusions are ‘legally correct’ under a de novo standard of review.”).

2026However, if the evidentiary ruling “involves an interpretation and application of Maryland constitutional, statutory, or case law, our Court must determine 15 whether the trial court’s conclusions are legally correct under a de novo standard of review.” Schisler v. State, 394 Md. 519, 535 (2006) (further citation and internal quotation marks omitted).

2026When, as here, the ruling on appeal “‘involves an interpretation and application of Maryland statutory and case law, [we] must determine whether the [circuit] court’s conclusions are legally correct under a de novo standard of review.’” Id. (quoting Walter v. Gunter, 367 Md. 386, 392 (2002)); see also Wiggins v. Griner, 155 Md.

2025Co., 382 Md. 65, 72 (2004) (“When the trial court’s order ‘involves an interpretation and application of Maryland statutory and case law, our Court must determine whether the lower court’s conclusions are legally correct under a de novo standard of review.’” (quoting Walter v. Gunter, 367 Md. 386, 392 (2002))); see also Davy v. CIA, 456 F.3d 162, 164 (D.C.

2024When evaluating whether a circuit court’s decision was legally correct, “we give no deference to the trial court findings and review the decision under a de novo standard of review.” Lamson v. Montgomery Cnty., 460 Md. 349, 360 (2018).

2024When evaluating whether a circuit court’s decision was legally correct, “we give no deference to the trial court findings and review the decision under a de novo standard of review.” Lamson v. Montgomery Cnty., 460 Md. 349, 360 (2018).

2017However, when the circuit court’s decision “involves an interpretation and application of Maryland statutory and case law, our Court must determine whether the [circuit] court’s conclusions are legally correct under a de novo standard of review.” Blickenstaff v. State, 393 Md. 680, 683 , 904 A.2d 443 (2006) (quoting Gray v. State, 388 Md. 366, 375 , 879 A.2d 1064 (2005)).

2017However, when the circuit court’s decision “involves an interpretation and application of Maryland statutory and case law, our Court must determine whether the [circuit] court’s conclusions are legally correct under a de novo standard of review.” Blickenstaff v. State, 393 Md. 680, 683 , 904 A.2d 443 (2006) (quoting Gray v. State, 388 Md. 366, 375 , 879 A.2d 1064 (2005)).

2025It will not set aside the judgment of the trial court on the evidence unless clearly erroneous, and will give due regard to the opportunity of the trial court to judge the credibility of the witnesses.” Maryland Rule 14-216(a) dictates that following the filing of a petition for surplus funds, “[t]he court shall order distribution of the surplus [proceeds from a foreclosure sale] equitably among the claimants.” Trial courts are “granted broad discretion in granting or denying equitable relief[;]” however, “where an order [of a trial court] involves an interpretation and application of Maryland

2019Should the Circuit Court have found that the HOA’s denial of the Bloods’ application is unreasonable when the HOA provides no reason or justification for the denial? 8 statutory or case law, [we] must determine whether the trial court’s conclusions are ‘legally correct’ under a de novo standard of review.” Schisler v. State, 394 Md. 519, 535 (2006) (quoting Garfink v. Cloisters at Charles, Inc., 392 Md. 374, 383 (2006)).

2025Attorney Grievance Commission v. Moody, 457 Md. 90, 110 (2017); Md.

2022Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Moody, 457 Md. 90, 110 , 175 A.3d 811, 823 (2017); Md.

2026App. 231, 243 (2012) (citing Moore v. State, 388 Md. 446, 453 (2005); Davis v. Slater, 383 Md. 599, 604 (2004)); see also Schisler v. State, 394 Md. 519, 535 (2006) (“[W]here an order involves an interpretation and application of Maryland constitutional, statutory or case law, our Court must determine whether the trial court’s conclusions are ‘legally correct’ under a de novo standard of review.”).

2021See Peterson v. State, 467 Md. 713, 725 (2020) (“We review interpretations and applications of Maryland constitutional . . . law[] under a de novo standard of review to establish ‘whether the trial court’s conclusions are legally correct.’”) (quoting Schisler v. State, 394 Md. 519, 535 (2006)); see also Davis v. Slater, 383 Md. 599, 604 (2004) (“Because our interpretation of the Maryland Declaration of Rights and Constitution . . . [is] appropriately classified as [a] question[] of law, we review the issues de novo to determine if the trial court was legally correct in its rulings on these mat

2025However, “where the [child support] order involves an interpretation and application of Maryland statutory and case law, [this] Court must determine whether the [trial] court’s conclusions are ‘legally correct’ under a de novo standard of review.” Walter v. Gunter, 367 Md. 386, 392 (2002) (citing In re Mark M., 365 Md. 687, 707 (2001)).

2015Wildlife Trust, Inc., 157 Md.App. 447, 456 , 852 A.2d 996 (2004). “[W]here the order involves an interpretation and application of Maryland statutory and case law, [we] must determine whether the lower court’s conclusions are ‘legally correct’ under a de novo standard of review.” Walter v. Gunter, 367 Md. 386, 392 , 788 A.2d 609 (2002) (citing In re Mark M., 365 Md. 687, 704-05 , 782 A.2d 332 (2001)). a.

2025It will not set aside the judgment of the trial court on the evidence unless clearly erroneous, and will give due regard to the opportunity of the trial court to judge the credibility of the witnesses.” Maryland Rule 14-216(a) dictates that following the filing of a petition for surplus funds, “[t]he court shall order distribution of the surplus [proceeds from a foreclosure sale] equitably among the claimants.” Trial courts are “granted broad discretion in granting or denying equitable relief[;]” however, “where an order [of a trial court] involves an interpretation and application of Maryland

2019Third, he argues that the court erred when it relied on an interest worksheet attached to DONI’s motion in calculating damages. “[W]hile the trial court is granted broad discretion in granting or denying equitable relief, where an order [of the trial court] involves an interpretation and application of Maryland constitutional, statutory or case law, our Court must determine whether the trial court’s conclusions are ‘legally correct’ under a de novo standard of review.” Schisler v. State, 394 Md. 519, 535 (2006); see also Ehrlich v. Perez, 394 Md. 691, 708 (2006).

2021“Where a case involves the application of Maryland statutory and case law, our Court must determine whether the lower court’s conclusions are legally correct under a de novo standard of review.” Id. (citations and quotations omitted).

2021As such, “[w]here a case involves the application of Maryland statutory or case law, our Court must determine whether the [trial] court’s conclusions are legally correct under a de novo standard of review.” Id. at 569 , 231 A.3d at 448 (cleaned up).

2019When, however, the ruling “involves an interpretation and application of Maryland statutory and case law, we must determine whether the trial court’s conclusions are legally correct under a de novo standard of review.” Johnson v. Francis, 239 Md.

2019When, however, the ruling "involves an interpretation and application of Maryland statutory and case law, we must determine whether the trial court's conclusions are legally correct under a de novo standard of review." Johnson v. Francis , 239 Md.

2020Comm’rs of Washington Cty. v. Perennial Solar, LLC, 464 Md. 610, 617 (2019) (quoting Koste v. Town of Oxford, 431 Md. 14, 25 (2013) (“When an issue involves an interpretation and application of Maryland constitutional, statutory, or case law, an appellate court must determine whether the trial court’s conclusions are legally correct under a de novo standard of review.”)) (internal citations omitted).

2020Comm’rs of Washington Cty. v. Perennial Solar, LLC, 464 Md. 610, 617 (2019) (quoting Koste v. Town of Oxford, 431 Md. 14, 25 (2013) (“When an issue involves an interpretation and application of Maryland constitutional, statutory, or case law, an appellate court must determine whether the trial court’s conclusions are legally correct under a de novo standard of review.”)) (internal citations omitted).

2017However, when the circuit court’s decision “involves an interpretation and application of Maryland statutory and case law, our Court must determine whether the [circuit] court’s conclusions are legally correct under a de novo standard of review.” Blickenstaff v. State, 393 Md. 680, 683 , 904 A.2d 443 (2006) (quoting Gray v. State, 388 Md. 366, 375 , 879 A.2d 1064 (2005)).

2017However, when the circuit court’s decision “involves an interpretation and application of Maryland statutory and case law, our Court must determine whether the [circuit] court’s conclusions are legally correct under a de novo standard of review.” Blickenstaff v. State, 393 Md. 680, 683 , 904 A.2d 443 (2006) (quoting Gray v. State, 388 Md. 366, 375 , 879 A.2d 1064 (2005)).

2025Id. at 248 .

2009See id. at 246-47, 919 A.2d at 1285 (“In addition, this Court has held that questions of law, i.e. whether the facts taken together are sufficient to sustain the defense of laches, are subject to review under the de novo standard.”) (citations omitted).

2024When an evaluation of the “sufficiency of the evidence involves an interpretation and application of Maryland statutory and case law” we must preliminarily “determine whether the lower court’s conclusions are legally correct under a de novo standard of review.” Rodriguez v. State, 221 Md.

2024When an evaluation of the “sufficiency of the evidence involves an interpretation and application of Maryland statutory and case law” we must preliminarily “determine whether the lower court’s conclusions are legally correct under a de novo standard of review.” Rodriguez v. State, 221 Md.

2025State Bd. of Elections, 483 Md. 371, 391 (2023); cf. Mayor of Ocean City v. Comm’rs of Worcester Cnty., 475 Md. 306, 311-12 (2021) (“Our interpretation of the Maryland Constitution is a question of law; therefore, we review a circuit court’s interpretation of the Maryland Constitution under a de novo standard.”); Wheeling v. Selene Fin.

2023Rule 8-131(c); see also Mayor & City Council of Ocean City v. Comm’rs of Worcester County, 475 Md. 306, 311-12 (2021) (“Our interpretation of the Maryland Constitution is a question of law; therefore, we review a circuit court’s interpretation of the Maryland Constitution 15 under a de novo standard.”); Wheeling v. Selene Fin.

2025LP, 473 Md. 356 , 373 22 (2021) (“Where questions of law and statutory interpretation are presented, this Court reviews them de novo[.]”).

2023LP, 473 Md. 356, 373 (2021) (“Where questions of law and statutory interpretation are presented, this Court reviews them de novo[.]”).

2025The consciousness of the Court’s commitment to the de novo standard of review is demonstrated by the circumstances involved in the issuance of the opinion in Williams, 457 Md. 551 , 179 A.3d 1006 .

2025The consciousness of the Court’s commitment to the de novo standard of review is demonstrated by the circumstances involved in the issuance of the opinion in Williams, 457 Md. 551 , 179 A.3d 1006 .

2026“Where a case involves the application of Maryland statutory and case law, our Court must determine whether the lower court’s conclusions are legally correct under a de novo standard of review.” Clancy v. King, 405 Md. 541, 554 (2008) (internal quotation marks and further citation omitted).

2025“Where a case involves the application of Maryland statutory and case law, our Court must determine whether the lower court’s conclusions are ‘legally correct’ under a de novo standard of review.” Clancy v. King, 405 Md. 541, 554 , 954 A.2d 1092, 1099 (2008) (cleaned up).

2025Other cases over the past several years have consistently stated that relevancy 18 in weighing relevancy in light of unfairness or efficiency considerations, trial judges do not have discretion to admit irrelevant evidence.” State v. Simms, 420 Md. 705, 724 (2011); see also Parker v. State, 408 Md. 428 , 436–37 (2009) (explaining that the de novo standard of review is applicable to the trial judge’s conclusion of law that the evidence at issue is or is not “of consequence to the determination of the action” (quoting Md.

2025When we review discovery and evidentiary rulings on relevance, we apply a de novo standard of review to the court’s legal conclusion “that the evidence at issue is or is not ‘of consequence to the determination of the action.’” Ruffin Hotel Corp. of Md., Inc. v. Gasper, 418 Md. 594, 620 (2011) (quoting Parker v. State, 408 Md. 428, 437 (2009)); see J.L.

2025Other cases over the past several years have consistently stated that relevancy 18 in weighing relevancy in light of unfairness or efficiency considerations, trial judges do not have discretion to admit irrelevant evidence.” State v. Simms, 420 Md. 705, 724 (2011); see also Parker v. State, 408 Md. 428 , 436–37 (2009) (explaining that the de novo standard of review is applicable to the trial judge’s conclusion of law that the evidence at issue is or is not “of consequence to the determination of the action” (quoting Md.

2019State v. Simms , 420 Md. 705 , 724-25, 25 A.3d 144 , 155 (2011) ("The de novo standard of review is applicable to the trial judge's conclusion of law that the evidence at issue is or is not of consequence to the determination of the action.") (quoting Parker v. State , 408 Md. 428 , 437, 970 A.2d 320 , 325 (2009) (cleaned up).