Case law

Catonsville Nursing Home, Inc. v. Loveman

349 Md. 560 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · May 15, 1998

[In order to qualify *565 for that license, Inglenook was issued its own certificate of need.] In 1987, the Center was acquired by Evergreen Health Group, Inc. … 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.

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.

Parler & Wobber v. Miles & Stockbridge, P.C.

359 Md. 671 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jul 25, 2000

The defendants raised the affirmative defense of qualified immunity from suit on the grounds they acted in good faith and on advice of their legal counsel. Hearn , at 577. … Protopapas, 314 Md. 340, 353 , 550 A.2d 947, 954 (1988)(dis-cussing immunities granted over the years such as interspousal immunity, workers’ compensation immunity, and parent- *702 child immunity).

Anderson v. Anderson

285 Md. 515 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jul 23, 1979

The court ruled that the support payments owed by Edgar do not constitute “alimony” under Maryland law, but that they do qualify as “alimony” under the federal definition of that term in 42 U.S.C. § 662 (c) (1977) and thus … Section 1677 of Title 15 of the United States Code establishes a rule for construction of § 1673 along with state laws limiting garnishment: § 1677.

Kee v. State Highway Administration

313 Md. 445 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Aug 26, 1988

Consequently, the plaintiffs assert, the State’s self-insurance program, established in 1985, covers the accident, and therefore the action is not barred by sovereign immunity. … The 1982-1983 budget act clearly authorized purchase of insurance coverage only for §§ 5-403(a)(3) and (4).

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.

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.

Montrose Christian School Corp. v. Walsh

363 Md. 565 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Apr 12, 2001

The court did hold that the school was entitled to charitable immunity but that such immunity did not extend to Scheck. … Section 27-19 of the Montgomery County *584 Code, together with Art. 49B, § 42, of the Maryland Code, clearly abrogate any charitable immunity that might otherwise have existed in cases like the present ones. IV.

Roosevelt v. Corapcioglu

415 Md. 434 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Aug 25, 2010

The Master erred and was otherwise clearly erroneous when he concluded that the Qualified Domestic Relations Order requested was not available. … A review of federal bankruptcy case law clearly establishes that child support *440 includes costs and fees incurred enforcing a child custody order. Silverman v.

May. & City Cncl. Of Baltimore v. Varghese

Court of Appeals of Maryland · Dec 23, 2025

In a demand letter to the City, the man asserted that the accident occurred while he was attempting to 1 The City of Baltimore Development Corporation “was clearly established, and is maintained, as an … Today’s holding should be read within those established limits.

State v. Young

Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jun 23, 2026

But in enacting a partial waiver of sovereign immunity to allow recovery in tort, the State established the MTCA in the model of an insurance program to manage the liability it was assuming. See Md. … If a plaintiff contends that the MTCA’s exception to the State’s sovereign immunity defense extends to multiple incidents or occurrences, the plaintiff carries the burden of establishing that as well.

Hebron Savings Bank v. City of Salisbury

259 Md. 294 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Oct 19, 1970

So much of the plaintiff’s property, therefore, as is covered by the water, would seem to be clearly taken within the meaning of the constitutional prohibition.” … It is our view that Hebron must be given an opportunity to show the court below that the property demol *305 ished had value to it and was not a nuisance when it was demolished, and that if it can establish the amount of

Rodrigues-Novo v. Recchi America, Inc.

381 Md. 49 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Apr 14, 2004

In order to determine whether one qualifies as a statutory employer under the Act, this Court has separated the requirements of Section 9-508 into four elements. … Whether there was a qualifying “subcontract” can be determined only by considering the scope of the principal’s obligation. See M.A. Long Co., 156 Md. at 645-46, 144 A. at 778 .

Lohr v. Upper Potomac River Commission

180 Md. 584 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · May 26, 1942

The exception definitely followed the rule that immunity may be invoked whenever a creature of the State is performing some governmental function. … The establishment of a district for the control of State waters, whether it be for the supplying of water to its citizens, or to control floods, is fully within the power and duty of the State to secure, preserve and promote

Smith v. Gross

319 Md. 138 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Apr 9, 1990

The relevant and material facts set out in the Complaint here were sufficient to establish, if proved, that Virginia Lee Smith was the natural mother of the child, that she was the personal representative of his estate, that … Clearly, he had not completely abandoned the parental relationship; the child was with him at the time of the accident.

Short v. State

29 L.R.A. 404 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Feb 27, 1895

A brief reference to the legislation in force when the Constitution of 1776 was adopted will clearly show, we think, the nature *399 and character of poll taxes, the levying of which was declared to be grievous and oppressive … And in addition to the poll taxes thus levied for public purposes, the Act of 1702, chap. 1, declaring the Church of England to be the established church of the colony, also provided that a tax of forty pounds of tobacco

Lusby v. Lusby

283 Md. 334 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jul 19, 1978

Caudle, 560 S.W.2d 925, 927 (Tex. 1977) (The court “abolish[ed] the rule established in Nickerson [and Matson v. … It must take the law as it has been established by competent legislative authority. It cannot, in any legal sense, make law, but only declare what the law is, as established by competent authority.

Bolick v. BD. OF ED. OF CHARLES CTY.

256 Md. 180 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Dec 18, 1969

Boards of education in this State do not per se enjoy governmental immunity from suit, Code (1957) Article 77, Section 38. … However, it has been conclusively established that boards of education are immune from liability in tort actions, since the legislature has given them no power to raise money for the purpose of paying damages, nor to pay

Mesmer v. Maryland Automobile Insurance Fund

353 Md. 241 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Mar 11, 1999

Three days later MAIF informed Hyman that the Chevrolet did not qualify as an insured vehicle under the terms of the policy and that the policy was being voided ab initio. … , then” MAIF does not enjoy sovereign immunity.

Clarke v. State ex rel. Darnall

8 G. & J. 111 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Dec 15, 1836

established by the adduction of the bond, or an office copy thereof, unless indeed the bond had been lost, or the record thereof was destroyed or lost, when proof of an inferior character might perhaps be admissible. … Hall, under the circumstances, would be clearly incompetent to prove such guardianship. All this evidence offered on the part of the defendant, was inadmissible upon another ground.