Cases pin-citing J.L. Matthews, Inc. v. Maryland-National Capital Park & Planning Commission
J.L. Matthews, Inc. v. Maryland-National Capital Park & Planning Commission · 2002 · 11 pinpoint citations from 6 cases, 5 distinct passages.
Fuentes v. State
· 2017-07-12 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · pin 368 Md. at 71
“[W]hen the trial judge’s ruling [on the admissibility of evidence] involves a legal question, we review the trial court’s ruling de novo.”
Martinez v. Johns Hopkins Hospital
· 2013-07-03 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · 2 pin-cites
· pin 368 A.2d at 71
“It is well-established that after the judge’s preclusion of the evidence [on a motion in limine ], Petitioner was not required to proffer that evidence at trial.”
Hamot v. Telos Corp.
· 2009-05-06 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · 2 pin-cites
· pin 368 A.2d at 71
“Be-cause the injunction expired well prior to this case coming before us, the propriety of the injunction ordinarily would be a moot issue.”
DeLeon v. State
· 2008-12-23 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · pin 368 Md. at 71
“[W]hen the trial judge’s ruling [on the admissibility of evidence] involves a *21 legal question, we review the trial court’s ruling de novo.”
Taylor v. Mandel
· 2007-11-09 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · 4 pin-cites
· pin 368 A.2d at 71
"[A] contemporaneous objection made at the time of the ruling ordinarily preserves the issue for appellate review."
Caffrey v. Department of Liquor Control
· 2002-08-23 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · pin 368 Md. at 71
“[W]hen the trial judge’s ruling involves a legal question, we review the trial court’s ruling de novo.”