Case law

Rite Aid Corp. v. Hagley

374 Md. 665 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · May 13, 2003

Consequently, holding that the conduct supporting the allegations of defamation and invasion of privacy exceeded the qualified immunity of the statutes, it vacated the judgment as to those counts and remanded the case to … Simply put, if good faith immunity can be overcome by establishing negligence, then good faith immunity is a meaningless concept as one would have to be free from negligence, and thus not liable in any event, to also avail

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.

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.

Harden v. Mass Transit Administration

277 Md. 399 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Apr 9, 1976

It said it did not reach the issue of sovereign immunity. … ’mean the Mass Transit Administrator whose office is established by Article 41, § 207D, of this Code.” 8 .

Surratt v. Prince George's County

320 Md. 439 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Sep 4, 1990

any county waiving this defense to establish an insurance program. … Clearly, an “insurance program” may encompass both methods of protection.

State v. Roll and Scholl

267 Md. 714 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jan 17, 1973

When our forefathers “ordained and established” the Constitution of the United States, one of their specified purposes was “to establish justice.” … THE RESPONDENT: Not clearly. Would you please repeat that?

Shriver v. Carlin & Fulton Co.

155 Md. 51 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Apr 5, 1928

In the latter case, Lord Eldon decided, in conformity with the principle established by Solly v. … And that view is very clearly expressed in a note in 58 L. R.

Walters Art Gallery v. Walters Workers Un.

Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jul 29, 2025

The IRS applies different criteria when determining whether an entity qualifies as a governmental instrumentality for tax purposes. … Immunity is a major point of distinction from Moberly. 276 Md. at 223.

Harford County v. Town of Bel Air

348 Md. 363 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jan 14, 1998

But I do find that the two statutes establishing the respective fees are similar except that the present tipping fee exempts recycling. … The case at bar clearly does not present the type of situation in which either the frustration of purpose doctrine or the impossibility of performance doctrine applies. D.

West American Insurance v. Popa

352 Md. 455 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Dec 22, 1998

They established fault on the part of the state employee and established their damages at $867,000. This is all that Maryland law requires under the circumstances here. … Waiver of immunity. “(a) In general.

Pan American Health Organization v. Montgomery County

338 Md. 214 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · May 11, 1995

Art. 28, § 7-103. 1 The Regional District Act establishes two mechanisms for land use planning. The first mechanism is through zoning. … Second, PAHO contends that the Zoning Text Amendment is preempted by § 7-112, which establishes the mandatory referral process for public buildings.

Peurifoy v. Congressional Motors, Inc.

254 Md. 501 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Aug 4, 1969

Communications arising out of the employer-employee relationship clearly enjoy a qualified privilege, and could be included in the line of cases which extend the privilege to groups engaged in a common purpose, Prosser, Torts … See also, Evans, Legal Immunity for Defamation, 24 Minn. L.

Boblitz v. Boblitz

296 Md. 242 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jun 30, 1983

Lyons, 208 N.E. 533 , 536-7 (Ohio 1965) declared, "This court is not convinced that a useful purpose would be served in overthrowing the rule of interspousal immunity from suit so well established in a majority of jurisdictions … In the subject case the issue whether the rule continues to be viable is clearly before us.

Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission v. Pride Homes, Inc.

291 Md. 537 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Oct 15, 1981

Commission had waived sovereign immunity.” We did not hold that the Commission had waived sovereign immunity. In fact, it is doubtful whether the Commission as such could waive such immunity. … We said, "When read as a *544 whole, § 1-3 clearly expresses a legislative intent to waive the WSSC’s sovereign immunity.” Id. at 515.

Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission v. Riverdale Heights Volunteer Fire Co.

308 Md. 556 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Feb 10, 1987

It establishes a rule of substantive law. … Unlike the instant case, Janda involved a statute the terms of which clearly reflected a retroactive intent.

Bunting v. State

312 Md. 472 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · May 5, 1988

State, 282 Md. 557 , 386 A.2d 1206 (1978), clearly illustrates that only a very few .rights are analogous to the Double Jeopardy Clause’s entitlement not to stand trial. … This would be flatly inconsistent with the long-established and sound public policy against piecemeal appeals. 9 As the circuit Court’s order in the present case did not fall within the collateral order doctrine, the Court

Montgomery County v. Bhatt

446 Md. 79 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jan 22, 2016

He argues that “the County has not cited a single Maryland decision holding that a privately-owned railway is immune to adverse possession.” … In order to be considered “immune” from a claim for adverse possession, the right- of-way must remain in public use.

Gables Construction v. Red Coats

468 Md. 632 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · May 26, 2020

In holding that the defendants could not file a third-party complaint against the employer because of the employer immunity conferred by the Workers’ Compensation Act, we reasoned that the Commissioner’s notes clearly contemplated … Specifically, we observed that we had found that there was no right of contribution under the UCATA in the context of interspousal immunity and workers’ compensation immunity.

Gordon v. Mayor of Baltimore

5 Gill 231 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Dec 15, 1847

over the constitution and laws of this municipal corporation, so to have modified or repealed the taxing power of the city, as to have accomplished what is asserted to have been the design of this contract, an absolute immunity … be considered as the true construction of the contract, and have insisted, that as the object of the contract was to operate on the taxing power; and as the contract itself was created by a legislative grant of certain immunities

Waicker v. Colbert

347 Md. 108 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Sep 2, 1997

Products, 306 Md. 644 , 511 A.2d 40 (1986), represents the only exception to this established precedent. … Clearly, the issue in both actions was the same: the validity and applicability of the relevant statutes.