Case law

Western Contracting Corp. v. Titter

255 Md. 581 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Nov 19, 1969

See Annotation entitled “Public Contractor’s Immunity” 69 A.L.R. 489 — where it is stated on page 490: “One who contracts with a public body for the performance of public work is entitled to have the immunity of the public … Although Western Contracting was able to establish that it had a contract with the Army Engineers to widen and deepen the C & D Canal, by the oral testimony of Mr.

Maurice v. Worden

54 Md. 233 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jun 30, 1880

We can clearly gather from this record that the papers contained in this copy are lodged in the Navy Department for safe-keeping, “ agreeably to the laws of the ” United States. … Blackburn, stated that the immunity of Judges of the Superior Courts, was established to secure their independence, and to prevent them from being harassed by vexatious actions.

Bartlett v. Christhilf

69 Md. 219 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jun 13, 1888

The law is so stated very clearly by Lord Eldon in Johnson vs. Evans, (3 Esp., 32); it is so stated also, not indeed with absolute certainty, in a note to the well known case of Hodgson vs. … At all events, we are not prepared to establish such a doctrine, in the absence of all authority to sanction it, and in view of the vexatious and multiplied litigation to which it would inevitably lead.

Green v. State

59 Md. 123 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jul 14, 1882

The omitted words show most clearly that it was a personal privilege which was accorded,—relief from the duty, if they chose to avail themselves of it. … Exemption imports competency, and the immunity should only be claimed by the privileged person.

Offen v. Brenner

402 Md. 191 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Nov 14, 2007

The test, since its establishment in Gersh , has been applied by this Court in five cases. *202 In Miner v. … The policy extending immunity under Gersh applied, “[tjaking full account of the vital public function of health care malpractice proceedings initiated before arbitration panels” as well as the procedural safeguards established

Estate of Burris v. State

360 Md. 721 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Sep 14, 2000

That Act “established a limited waiver of the State’s immunity in certain tort actions.” Condon v. State, 332 Md. 481, 492 , 632 A.2d 753, 758 (1993). … Petitioners averred that "[tjheir collective failure to supply NVG’s, provide NVG training, adequately establish and enforce a speed limit, and establish a viable medical evacuation plan, played as much of a role in Major

Stearman v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance

381 Md. 436 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · May 14, 2004

Such a contract provision is clearly allowable under the mandatory minimum requirements laid out by the Legislature. … Nonetheless, this Court was clearly aware of Boblitz and could have used its reasoning to invalidate household exclusions, if it thought such a course were necessary or desirable. .

Board of Education v. Marks-Sloan

428 Md. 1 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Aug 21, 2012

’ view, because there is no express mention of “indemnification” in the statute, the Legislature clearly intended that county board of education employees receive immunity for their negligent acts committed in the course … from civil liability or defenses established by any other provision of the Code or available at common law to which the volunteer may be entitled.

O & B, Inc. v. Md.-Nat'l Cap. P. & P. Commission

279 Md. 459 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Feb 22, 1977

for the state or its agencies is firmly established in Maryland law. … The words ‘other corporate acts’ clearly indicate the extent to which the permission to sue and be sued was intended. The language used is not to sue and be sued as other corporations.

Schmidt v. Prince George's Hospital

366 Md. 535 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Nov 15, 2001

In the latter case category, the parent does not qualify as “unwilling” and the child is not held liable. … The above-cited cases clearly reflect the principle that the court created doctrine of parent-child immunity is inapplicable where a parent-minor child relationship does not exist and where, consequently, the public policy

CITY COUNCIL OF BALTIMORE v. AS Abell Co.

218 Md. 273 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Nov 13, 1958

The 4% sales tax is, in form, a tax on the purchasers of advertising, but the evidence establishes the fact that its practical effect is, to all intents and purposes, virtually the same as the gross receipts tax. … It must be afforded a reasonable interpretation, but does not operate to save provisions which clearly would not have been enacted into law except upon the assumption that the entire act was valid.

Johns Hopkins University v. Board of County Commissioners

185 Md. 614 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Feb 6, 1946

A number of cases are cited by appellees to establish the Maryland rule. It is sufficient to refer to the following cases: In Grand Lodge of Maryland, Knights of Pythias v. … The evidence in the case clearly shows that Hopkins holds the mere naked title to the properties in question.

Maulsby v. Reifsnider

69 Md. 143 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jun 13, 1888

This immunity, remarked Chancellor Kent, in Yates vs. … As I am of opinion that the words complained of in this case, were clearly spoken in reference to the case then on trial, and that therefore the defendant could not he held liable even if it were conceded that a qualified

Long v. Hawken

114 Md. 234 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jan 10, 1911

There is nothing, we think, in the facts of this case, that could take it out of the general rule, as established by the decisions cited by us, or would deny to the appellee the immunity and exemption from service of process … In conclusion, we hold, that the appellee, under the facts of this case, was clearly entitled to the immunity and privilege claimed, both as a witness and a defendant suitor, while attending the sessions of the Circuit Court

John McShain, Inc. v. Comptroller

202 Md. 68 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Mar 24, 1953

The exemption recognized in the first paragraph depends upon the use to which the property is put, and not upon the immunity of the user, even though such immunity does not extend to its contractors under other circumstances … Nor is it material that all activities of the federal government are considered governmental in determining the scope of its immunity, since the exemption is predicated upon the use and not upon the immunity.

Frankel v. Board of Regents

361 Md. 298 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Nov 6, 2000

Under § 13-1104(a), a claimant has three years from the date of payment to file “a claim for refund under this article ...,” and Jeremy clearly filed his claim and brought this action within that time. … Although the Board’s waiver of governmental immunity for actions filed in tort may be limited “to the extent of any applicable liability insurance,” the waiver of immunity for other actions is not so limited.

State v. Rice, Nero, Miller White & Goodson v. State

447 Md. 594 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · May 20, 2016

In sum, the plain language of CJ § 9-123 clearly and unambiguously requires a trial court to issue an order in response to a properly pled request to compel immunized testimony. … It is well established that the decision to grant a witness immunity is solely an executive function. See United States v.

Bozman v. Bozman

376 Md. 461 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Aug 12, 2003

“On the other hand, it is sometimes advisable to correct a decision or decisions wrongly made in the first instance, if it is found that the decision is clearly wrong and contrary to other established principles.” … “Did the Court of Special Appeals err in establishing as the standard for defining 'outrageous' conduct the standard established in Harris v.

Nationwide Mutual Insurance v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co.

314 Md. 131 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Nov 28, 1988

Instead, the statutory section relied on by Nationwide is a qualified definition of “person” for purposes of the entire Transportation Article generally. … In no case shall the uninsured motorist coverage be less than the coverage afforded a qualified person under Article *135 48A, §§ 243H and 243-1.

A. S. Abell Co. v. Kirby

227 Md. 267 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jan 19, 1962

The Courts and the writers have not agreed as to whether fair comment is a qualified privilege (those who say it is rely largely on the fact that actual malice, as in the case of concededly qualified privileges, destroys … In so far as the difference *273 of view has any practical significance at all, the former seems the proper one since proof of actual malice will defeat the immunity which is thus a defeasible or ‘qualified’ one.”