State of Maryland Sample Clauses

State of Maryland. AIMCO after the Effective Time is sometimes referred to herein as the "Surviving Corporation." The effects and the consequences of the Merger shall be as set forth in Section 1.2.
State of Maryland. 2022) “Sportsbook Facilities Contribute $469,000 to the State in First Month of Operations.” Maryland State Lottery and Gaming Control Agency. Retrieved March 24, 2022, from https://www.mdgaming.com/sportsbook-facilities- contribute-469000-to-the-state-in-first-month-of-operations/. State of Maryland. (2022) “Sportsbook Facilities Contribute $644,098 to the State in First Full Month of Operations.” Maryland State Lottery and Gaming Control Agency. Retrieved March 24, 2022, from https://www.mdgaming.com/sportsbook-facilities- contribute-644098-to-the-state-in-first-full-month-of-operations. State of Maryland. (2022) “Sportsbook Facilities Contribute $134,628 to State February.” Maryland State Lottery and Gaming Control Agency. Retrieved March 24, 2022, from https://www.mdgaming.com/sportsbook-facilities-contribute-134628-to-the-state- during-february/. Neighboring states and jurisdictions to Maryland have also legalized sports betting.12 Market competition and other types of entertainment and amusement in these different states impact sports wagerers’ decisions on where to place their bets and therefore impact taxes generated in Maryland.‌‌‌ Sports wagering tax revenue is distributed to the Blueprint for Maryland’s Future Fund, a special fund established to support Maryland public schools.13 In addition, unclaimed winning wagers are distributed to the Problem Gaming Fund.14 A percentage of license application fees is directed to the Small, Minority-owned and Women-owned Business Sports Wagering Assistance Fund.15
State of Maryland. Each of Parent and the Borrower has full and adequate power to own their respective Properties and conduct their respective businesses as now conducted, and are duly licensed or qualified and in good standing in each jurisdiction in which the nature of their respective businesses conducted by them or the nature of the Properties owned or leased by them requires such licensing or qualifying and where the failure to be so qualified could reasonably be expected to have, in each instance, a Material Adverse Effect.
State of Maryland. Woodward,* Reed, Sharer, J. Frederick. (Senior Judge, Specially Assigned), JJ. Opinion by Woodward, J. Filed: January 24, 2019 *Woodward, Patrick L., J., now retired, participated in the hearing of this case while an active member of this Court, and as its Chief Judge; after being recalled pursuant to the Constitution, Article IV, Section 3A, he also participated in the decision and the preparation of this opinion. ** This is an unreported opinion, and it may not be cited in any paper, brief, motion, or other document filed in this Court or any other Maryland Court as either precedent within the rule of stare decisis or as persuasive authority. Md. Rule 1-104. In 2007 in the Circuit Court for Prince George’s County, appellant, Elijah Peterson, was (1) found guilty of two counts of second degree assault, (2) determined to be not criminally responsible (“NCR”), and (3) committed to the Department of Health and Mental Hygiene (“the Department”)1 for institutional inpatient treatment. Five years later, Peterson leveled two collateral attacks on his NCR judgment. The first was in the form a petition for post-conviction relief. The circuit court, however, dismissed the petition without reaching the merits, because, under § 7-101 of the Maryland Code (2001, 2008 Repl. Vol.), Criminal Procedure Article (“CP”), Peterson did not meet the statutory requirement of being sentenced to imprisonment or placed on parole or probation. Peterson appealed the dismissal by filing an application for leave to appeal to this Court, which we subsequently granted. While his application for leave to appeal was pending before us, Peterson filed a petition for writ of error coram nobis. Following a hearing, the circuit court denied his coram nobis petition on the grounds, among others, that he was not suffering a significant collateral consequence as a result of the 2007 NCR judgment. After Peterson’s motion for reconsideration was denied, he noted an appeal from that judgment.2
State of Maryland. Bell, C.J. * Raker Harrell Battaglia Greene Eldridge, John C. (Retired, specially assigned) Cathell, Dale R. (Retired, specially assigned), JJ. Dissenting Opinion by Harrell, J., which Cathell, J., joins. Filed: July 20, 2009 *Raker, J., now retired, participated in the hearing and conference of this case while an active member of this Court; after being recalled pursuant to the Constitution, Article IV, Section 3A, she also participated in the decision and adoption of this opinion. I dissent. The Majority opinion is fine until its very end (Maj. slip op. at 28-29) when it misapplies its careful analysis and recitation of the community care-taking function as it should be applied in Maryland. The Majority holds that Officer Zimmerer violated Wilson’s Fourth Amendment rights when he handcuffed Wilson and transported him to the hospital. Maj. slip op at 28. Calling it “unreasonable” (i.e., not narrowly tailored) to handcuff Wilson in order to place him in the cruiser for such transport, the Majority finds it important to its conclusion that it discerns no reason in the record for why an ambulance was not summonsed for the purpose. Maj. slip op. at 29. The Majority’s reasoning overrides the latitude that ought to be granted to law enforcement officers to make discretionary calls as to what additional public services may be necessary under varying circumstances. The record tells me that, other than some scraped knuckles on his hands and his general catatonic behavior, Wilson’s observed condition may not have commanded an ambulance and an EMT. In any event, what makes the Majority imagine that, under these circumstances, Wilson’s liberty would not have been restricted by restraints had he been transported by ambulance? Transport by police vehicle seems eminently reasonable, appropriate to the occasion, and fiscally sound. To call Officer Zimmerer’s exercise of judgment here unreasonable and unconstitutional is wrong. As Chief Judge Krauser stated for the Court of Special Appeals in its opinion in this matter: [A]lthough the officer thought that [Wilson] might “possibly [be] under the influence of a controlled dangerous substance,” he testified that he stopped [him] and later transported him to the hospital out of concern for [Wilson’s] safety and the safety of others, and not to detect or investigate any criminal conduct by [Wilson]. The officer stated that he got out of his vehicle to follow [Wilson] because he “wanted to make sure that [Wilson] was okay”; tha...
State of Maryland n.d.) “Maryland Sports Wagering.” Maryland State Lottery and Gaming Control Agency. Retrieved March 24, 2022, from https://www.mdgaming.com/maryland-sports-wagering/
State of Maryland. Wells, C.J., Shaw, Harrell, Glenn T., Jr., (Senior Judge, Specially Assigned) JJ. Opinion by Wells, C.J. Filed: April 27, 2022 *Tang, Rosalyn and Albright, Anne K., JJ., did not participate in the Court’s decision to designate this opinion for publication pursuant to Rule 8-605.1. Several years before this appeal and in a different case, an Assistant State’s Attorney with the Montgomery County State’s Attorney’s Office (“ASA#1”)1 secured a stalking conviction against appellant Graham Schiff in the Circuit Court for Montgomery County. For the two years following that trial, Schiff sent a total of eight letters or e-mails directly to ASA#1 or to others professionally connected to her. Each correspondence detailed, to varying degrees, Schiff’s amorous feelings for ASA#1, who wanted no contact with Schiff. As a result, the State charged Schiff with stalking and harassing ASA#1. Ultimately, a jury empaneled in the Circuit Court for Montgomery County convicted him of both offenses. Schiff timely appealed both convictions, presenting the following two issues which we have slightly rephrased2:
State of Maryland. Berger, Friedman, Eyler, James R. (Senior Judge, Specially Assigned), JJ. Opinion by Berger, J. Filed: July 6, 2021 *This is an unreported opinion, and it may not be cited in any paper, brief, motion, or other document filed in this Court or any other Maryland Court as either precedent within the rule of stare decisis or as persuasive authority. Md. Rule 1-104. Following a jury trial in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City, Steven Bowman (“Steven”) and Eric Bowman (“Eric”), appellants and brothers, were convicted of first degree murder; use of a firearm in the commission of a crime of violence; illegally wearing, carrying, and transporting a handgun; and possessing a regulated firearm after having been disqualified by a prior conviction.1 Steven2 and Eric3 each present three issues for our