Opinion ID: 2049012
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: standard of review

Text: [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.... Schisler v. State, 394 Md. 519, 535, 907 A.2d 175, 184 (2006). With regard to the motion to dismiss entered by the Circuit Court in Sillers, the standard of review is well settled: `[B]ecause we must deem the facts to be true, our task is confined to determining whether the trial court was legally correct in its decision to dismiss.' McDaniel v. Am. Honda Fin. Corp., 400 Md. 75, 83, 926 A.2d 757, 762 (2007) (quoting Debbas v. Nelson, 389 Md. 364, 372, 885 A.2d 802, 807 (2005)); Fioretti v. Md. State Bd. of Dental Exam'rs, 351 Md. 66, 71-72, 716 A.2d 258, 261 (1998). Similarly, with regard to the relevant summary judgments entered by the Circuit Court in Phillips and Cartwright, the standard of review is also clear: The trial court properly grants summary judgment... `if the motion and response show that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and that the party in whose favor judgment is entered is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.' Tyma v. Montgomery County, 369 Md. 497, 503-04, 801 A.2d 148, 152 (2002) (quoting Jones v. Mid-Atlantic Funding Co., 362 Md. 661, 675-76, 766 A.2d 617, 624-25 (2001)). Thus, in each of the appeals presently before the Court, our sole task is to determine whether the trial court was legally correct. Murphy v. Merzbacher, 346 Md. 525, 530-31, 697 A.2d 861, 864 (1997).