Case law

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over the constitution and laws of this municipal corporation, so to have modified or repealed the taxing power of the city, as to have accomplished what is asserted to have been the design of this contract, an absolute immunity … be considered as the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

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.

Stracke v. Estate of Butler

Court of Appeals of Maryland · Aug 15, 2019

The language in § 5-604(a) clearly differs from the language in § 5- 603(b)(3) because the former section omits the word “volunteer” from its language of which entities are afforded immunity. … Given those facts, it clearly was a jury issue as to whether, after being consistently told by Ms.

Ivy H. Smith Co. v. Warffemius

201 Md. 367 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Oct 1, 1965

Applicable Immunities of Principal. An agent who is acting in pursuance of his authority has such immunities of the principal as are not personal to the principal. Herzog v. … Clearly they were' intended to "prevent a trespass- by the contractor and thus liability on the Co-operative — and it would not be liable unless the contractor were its ’ agent.

Bentley v. Carroll

355 Md. 312 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Aug 4, 1999

We have never indicated that a person can qualify as an “expert in credibility,” no matter what his experience or expertise. … We reiterated in Bohnert that no matter how highly qualified the expert may be in his field, his opinion has no probative force unless a sufficient factual basis to support a rational conclusion is shown.

Tiernan v. Rescaniere's Adm'rs.

10 G. & J. 217 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Dec 15, 1838

In the case of a payment made to an individual under the same circumstances, it clearly would not. … It is true the sovereign power has an immunity from suits, but that very immunity is grounded on the maxim, that the sovereign power is always ready and willing to do justice, and the same justice it is to be presumed, would

People's Counsel v. Surina

400 Md. 662 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Aug 23, 2007

The Assertion of Immunity Under Glascock in This Case is Problematic. … Access roads clearly are "uses” permitted as of right in both the R.C. 2, BCZR § 1A01.2.B.5, and R.C. 5 zones, BCZR § 1A04.2.A.7. 26 .

Harrison v. Motor Vehicle Administration

302 Md. 634 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Apr 10, 1985

has waived the immunity either directly or by necessary implication.” … 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.

Hatzinicolas v. Protopapas

314 Md. 340 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Dec 9, 1988

The plaintiff alleged that “Protopapas t/a Hopkins Carry Out was negligent by failing to maintain the establishment in a proper and safe manner for its invitees, that [Protopapas] knew or should have known of the dangerous … In fact, a note in the Maryland Law Review concerning the Riegger decision points out that when this Court decided that case, the trend was clearly opposite the view there taken. 6 Md.L.Rev. 173, 175 n. 13 (1942).

Conover v. Conover

450 Md. 51 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jul 7, 2016

Next, the court ruled that even if Michelle qualified as a “father” under ET § l-208(b) despite her being female, the statute did not establish parentage for purposes of child custody and visitation: A non-biological, non-adoptive … For these reasons, the first ground for overruling Janice M. is satisfied—the precedent was “clearly wrong and contrary to established principles.” DRD Pool Serv., 416 Md. at 64 , 5 A.3d 45 . Janice M.

Dennis v. Fire & Police Employees' Retirement System

390 Md. 639 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jan 18, 2006

We stated as follows: “The law requires each plan to establish ‘reasonable procedures to determine the qualified status of domestic relations orders and to administer distributions under such qualified orders.’ 29 U.S.C. … Under the definition of “Qualified Domestic Relations Order” adopted in the REA, a domestic relations order is a qualified domestic relations order only if it “clearly specifies ... each plan to which such order applies.”

City of Frostburg v. Jenkins

215 Md. 9 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Sep 24, 2001

Town of Booneville, 153 So. 670 (Miss.) on the ground that the legislative policy had not been clearly established in the earlier case. It squarely held that the statute did not violate the Fourteenth Amendment. … The prohibition in Section 34, in terms, runs only against the State, and this construction would seem to be supported by the qualified prohibition in Section 54 in the case of the counties.

Property & Casualty Insurance Guaranty Corp. v. Yanni

397 Md. 474 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Mar 15, 2007

It is statutorily required to investigate all claims brought against the Corporation, settle and pay all covered claims, and deny all other claims not qualifying as “covered.” … The court concluded that CIGA’s immunity provision prevailed over the penalty provision of the Colorado Workers’ Compensation Act because, following well-established rules of statutory interpretation, “to the extent there

Bass v. State

182 Md. 496 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Dec 15, 1943

This common law rule, as revised, became formally established in England and was the law there when the government of the United States was formed. … The case at bar presents a state of facts which clearly shows the line of distinction between these two classifications.

Mendenhall v. Steckel

47 Md. 453 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Feb 15, 1878

He nowhere says that he was directed to qualify the number of acres mentioned in the *466 deed by adding the words more or less. … Yet it was changed and the number of acres mentioned in the deed is put down at one hundred and eighty-seven, without any qualifying expression whatever.

Mayor of Baltimore v. Chase

360 Md. 121 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jul 27, 2000

Section 5-604 grants qualified immunity from civil liability for negligence to fire and rescue companies and their personnel. … Although there are times when the statutory language is clearly consistent with the apparent purpose of the legislature and further research is not necessary, there are other times when more extensive inquiry is required.

Robinson v. Bunch

367 Md. 432 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jan 11, 2002

Limitation on defense of sovereign immunity. … A dispute between individual employees and the appropriate state officials concerning overtime compensation is clearly encompassed by the administrative grievance procedure.

Anne Arundel County Board of Education v. Norville

390 Md. 93 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Dec 12, 2005

Following an investigation, the EEOC closed its file, and advised Norville that it was “unable to conclude that the information obtained establishes violations of statutes.” … Maryland has clearly not waived its immunity from suits brought under the ADEA, and this immunity applies to private actions brought against its agencies in both federal and state courts.

Macedo v. Automobile Insurance Co.

480 Md. 200 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Aug 11, 2022

The Insurance Article contemplates the possibility of an umbrella policy providing optional UM coverage: “A policy that, as its primary purpose, provides coverage in excess of other valid and collectible insurance or qualified … If the statutory language is “unambiguous and clearly consistent with the statute’s apparent purpose, [the] inquiry as to legislative intent ends ordinarily and we apply the statute as written, without resort to other

Frye v. Frye

305 Md. 542 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Mar 11, 1986

Our survey clearly established that the overwhelming weight of authority was in complete accord with the abrogation of the rule as to cases sounding in negligence. … cautions: Repudiation of general tort immunity does not establish liability for an act or omission that, because of the parent-child relationship, is otherwise privileged or is not tortious.