Case law

Motor Vehicle Administration of the Maryland Department of Transportation v. Seidel Chevrolet, Inc.

326 Md. 237 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Apr 10, 1992

We believe that MVA’s characterization more accurately reflects the Legislature’s intent in establishing the Fund. … State Highway Admin., we observed: "A waiver of sovereign or governmental immunity from suit generally requires that two conditions be met.

Boyer v. State

323 Md. 558 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Aug 26, 1991

A decision to operate or continue operating the car, when a reasonable person would not do so, clearly can be “negligent operation.” … Charles County, in its motion for summary judgment, established a prima facie defense of gov *576 ernmental immunity. See Kee v. State Highway Admin., 313 Md. 445, 460 , 545 A.2d 1312, 1320 (1988).

Brown v. State

409 Md. 1 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · May 18, 2009

When her claim was dismissed on the ground that the judge had absolute immunity from suit, the petitioner noted an appeal. … stated: [Parker’s] argument [that the Circuit Court for Baltimore City did not have “jurisdiction” to issue a post-acquittal warrant for her arrest] not only misconstrues the statute but overlooks the critical distinction, clearly

Plitt v. Yakel

129 Md. 464 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Dec 13, 1916

This view, in our opinion, is clearly correct. … It is conceded, and, of course, it could not be doubted, that the sixth clause of the will establishes an effective spendthrift trust, with complete immunity from attachment, as to all the “legacies and bequests” to which

Wetherby v. Retail Credit Co.

235 Md. 237 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jun 9, 1964

It is a common, if not the general rule, that if the defendant establishes a qualified privilege the plaintiff, to prevail, must show not only malice but falsity. Ashcroft v. Hammond (N. Y.), 90 N. … Clearly, if the plaintiff must prove falsity to recover, when privilege has been established, the appellants were not entitled to the instruction they requested as to the continued presumption of falsity unless justification

Weber v. Probey

125 Md. 544 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Apr 8, 1915

to vote at the regular town election to he held in May, 1914, shall be qualified to vote at the special election in April, 1914, and that all persons qualified to vote at the regular town election to be held in May, 1915 … , shall be qualified to vote at the special election in April, 1915.

In re Ryan W.

434 Md. 577 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Sep 26, 2013

The Circuit Court agreed with Ryan’s contentions, leading to establishment of the constructive trust and subsequent appellate scrutiny of that judgment. … The regulation cited, however, does not clearly indicate that such a situation is pertinent to the rule set forth in subsection (b).

WBAL-TV Div., Hearst Corp. v. State

300 Md. 233 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jul 12, 1984

The Court has emphasized that ‘[t]he publisher of a newspaper has no special immunity from the application of general laws----’ Associated Press v. … The summons issued to WBAL sought one specific and clearly identified piece of evidence; it did not seek to rummage through the files of a news organization on a fishing expedition.

Smith v. Stephan

66 Md. 381 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jan 4, 1887

The distinction is clearly made in the Constitution between Federal and State elections on one side, and municipal elections on the other. It is impossible to mistake the meaning of the terms employed. … In a bill in equity filed against it, if the averment that the City of Westminster is not in debt can be established, it will follow that the issue of the bonds authorized on the assumption of such indebtedness must be enjoined

Bandy v. Clancy

449 Md. 577 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Aug 24, 2016

(b) That the Executor and trustee shall not have any rights, powers, privileges, duties, authority, immunities, or discretion, given by any other provision of this, my Last Will and Testament, if or to the extent that such … Clancy, however, clearly intended, by the establishment of the QTIP Trust, to benefit Mrs. Clancy to the detriment of the Younger Child, whose remainder could be diminished by Mrs. Clancy’s invasion of corpus for need.

Plank v. Summers

205 Md. 598 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Dec 13, 1954

Clearly, if the value claimed was unreasonable by comparison with the usual charges made for similar services, the defendant should be entitled to produce evidence tending to disprove or minimize the claim. … It may be doubted whether the witness had been sufficiently qualified to express an opinion on a surgical *607 matter.

Bryant v. State

436 Md. 653 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Feb 3, 2014

... or an opportunity to otherwise specify the reasons why the court believed the nexus had been established.” … New York, 337 U.S. 241, 247 , 69 S.Ct. 1079, 1083 , 93 L.Ed. 1337, 1342 (1949)). *672 Petitioner challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to establish his identity in the prior qualifying convictions, namely a conviction

Neustadter v. Holy Cross Hospital of Silver Spring, Inc.

418 Md. 231 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Feb 24, 2011

Baltimore, 359 Md. 653, 659 , 755 A.2d 1130, 1133-1134 (2000) (case determined on issues of conflict of laws and on “charitable immunity”). … Clearly, whether or not a state action imposes a “substantial *280 burden” on a party is an independent question from how adequately that party enforces his rights. 1 Furthermore, I would not address the intriguing issue

American Trucking Associations v. Goldstein

301 Md. 372 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Nov 1, 1984

IV of the United States Constitution. 7 It is well established that the Privileges and Immunities Clause is inapplicable to corporations. … Such distinction clearly has a rational basis.

Dahl v. Brunswick Corp.

277 Md. 471 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · May 13, 1976

for severance pay under the former he would necessarily also qualify under the latter, and every time a worker failed to qualify under the former he would necessarily also fail to qualify under the latter. … as an express agreement; but such facts and circumstances, when shown, must be such to establish that the intention to work a novation is clearly implied.

Doe v. Bd. of Educ., Montgomery Co.

295 Md. 67 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Dec 22, 1982

Clearly, each and every time a student fails to progress academically, it can be argued that he or she would have done better and received a greater benefit if another educational approach or diagnostic tool had been utilized … In the view we take of this case it is not necessary for us to address such questions as the extent, if any, to which sovereign immunity or governmental immunity might be applicable to an action such as this or whether the

Trageser v. Gray

9 L.R.A. 780 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Dec 5, 1890

A Board was established, consisting of three commissioners, invested with the power of granting licenses to sell these liquors by retail. … This was most clearly evident, not only from the statutes and ordinances themselves, hut from the Article in the Constitution of California, under which they were framed.

Church v. State

408 Md. 650 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · May 13, 2009

Watkins clearly yielded to the prosecutor’s purportedly greater knowledge of the facts. … In Green , the court held that a qualified privilege existed for non-disclosure of covert surveillance and specifically noted that the surveillance location privilege is built upon the established informer’s privilege in

Athas v. Hill

300 Md. 133 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jun 22, 1984

Clearly something extra is needed over and beyond the duty owed the employer. In Hoeverman [v. … Our review of the cases establishes that, although reasons have differed, the majority rule is against recovery in cases such as that at bar.

Rohrbeck v. Rohrbeck

318 Md. 28 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Dec 6, 1989

The Congressional concern was clearly reflected in the various House and Senate Committee Reports on the REA. … 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. § 1056 (d)(3)(G)(ii); 26