Case law

Comptroller of the Treasury, Income Tax Division v. First United Bank & Trust

320 Md. 352 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Aug 30, 1990

Congress knows how to express clearly an intent that income, distributed from one entity to another, retain, after distribution, the same character which the income had when received by the distributing entity. … Such conduit treatment is achieved by allowing a qualifying RIC to deduct the amount of dividends paid to its shareholders in computing the RIC’s taxable income, with the result that the RIC’s distributed net income can be

Atkinson v. Anne Arundel County

428 Md. 723 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Sep 28, 2012

public official immunity. … The provision was clearly invalid under Fitzhugh . The 1986 amendment, however, also provided: “ ‘The sentences, clauses or phrases of this section shall not be severable.

Wilmer v. Light Street Savings & Building Ass'n

141 Md. 238 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jun 21, 1922

The Circuit Court Number Two of Baltimore City was established in and for the City of Baltimore, as an additional court for the city, by chapter 194 of the Acts of 1888. … By section 8 of the same act (1888), it was also provided that there shall be elected at the same election, by the legal and qualified voters of Baltimore City, a clerk for the Circuit Court Number Two of .Baltimore.

Blount v. Board of Supervisors of Elections

247 Md. 342 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jul 3, 1967

Here, clearly, there was no such manipulation. The appellant himself defeated his own candidacy by an untimely change of residence. … Attorney General, supra, and the second contention is clearly without merit.

Robb v. Carter

65 Md. 321 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · May 27, 1886

Therefore, unless there is some clearly expressed and positive prohibition, which, by its terms, operates as an ouster, the person, filling the office, should continue to discharge those duties until a successor is qualified … of the present Mayor ■and City Council, it may reasonably be presumed that no •evils would ensue so serious as those which might possibly befall a large and populous city if this Court should, by a solemn adjudication, establish

Carter v. Huntington Title & Escrow, LLC

420 Md. 605 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jul 14, 2011

See also § 22-101 (“Premiums for title insurance shall be set out clearly and subject to the approval of the Commissioner [of the MIA].”). … If one starts with the statute, it says if you qualify for this reduced rate, then you get it.

Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. v. Paul

256 Md. 643 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Feb 6, 1970

She established that there were other persons in the parking lot at that time. … Appellant cites several jurisdictions which have adopted this qualified privilege.

Rotwein v. Bogart

227 Md. 434 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jan 25, 1962

Pustilnik could qualify as an expert in the lumber business but not in the flooring trade. … However, the lower court’s ruling may be reversed if clearly erroneous or an abuse of judicial discretion. Turner v.

Comptroller of Treasury v. Aerial Products, Inc.

210 Md. 627 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Aug 27, 1956

In early cases the Supreme Court of the United States gave a rather broad scope of immunity. This immunity has recently been narrowed. Helvering v. Mountain Producers Corp., 303 U. S. 376 , 82 L. Ed. 907 ; Graves v. … the production unit, and, therefore, that it was the intent of the parties that Aerial should acquire the property for use, which clearly demonstrates a purpose other than resale.

Taylor v. Mayor of Baltimore

130 Md. 133 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jan 11, 1917

to time, and as often as deemed proper, without incurring liability by the municipality to the abutting owner of property for the mere consequential damages that may be suffered by reason of the changed conditions, was clearly … We fully realize the importance,—the necessity—of a sewerage system for the City of Baltimore, and it should not be held responsible in any case unless it is clearly shown that the party suing is entitled to recover.

Benson v. State

389 Md. 615 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Dec 7, 2005

Cline, 384 Md. 245, 256 , 863 A.2d 297, 304 (2004), this Court held that the MTCA applied to a constitutional tort claim flowing from an asserted search and seizure violation, and extended to state personnel qualified immunity … Curran, 141 Md. 586, 601 , 119 A. 250 (1922), we examined a statute that was to be submitted to qualified voters in the State general election of 1922.

Public Service Commission v. Patuxent Valley Conservation League

300 Md. 200 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jul 12, 1984

Second, the issue is clearly important. … McClellan, supra, 697 F.2d at 316 : “[Pjart of the purpose of immunity, whether absolute or qualified, is to shield government officials from ‘the risks of trial—distraction of officials from their governmental duties, inhibition

Liddy v. Lamone

398 Md. 233 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Mar 29, 2007

Whether the elements of laches have been established is one of fact, see, e.g., Schmidt v. … governs the standard of review for questions of fact, i.e. whether the elements of laches have been established.

Arnold v. Prince George's County

270 Md. 285 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Nov 9, 1973

The Arnolds produced evidence which established the location, size and their ownership of the subject property, as well as that the location of their residence is near the frontage on Allentown Road, and that the subject … provided that the making of a general plan by the Commission is for “the protection and promotion of the health, safety, morals, comfort, and welfare of the present and future inhabitants of the regional district,” thus clearly

Ferguson v. Cappeau

6 H. & J. 394 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jun 15, 1824

to instruct the jury" that the appellee was not entitled to recover; the question, whether the goods xvere safely carried to Norfolk, and delivered to the appellee, or other person having authority to receive them, being clearly … It is an established general rule, that wheft the contract proved varies from that stated or described ih the declaration; the plaintiff must be nonsuited; .

Dasch v. Jackson

170 Md. 251 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Feb 20, 1936

Bauer, Herman Zapf, Clement Ehoff, and Charles Block, all of whom qualified, and entered upon the administration of the duties imposed upon the board. … For those “who make the law” are to govern by promulgated, established laws, not to be varied in particular cases, but to have one rule for rich and poor, “for the favorite at court and the countryman at plough.”

Maryland Transportation Authority v. Maryland Transportation Authority Police Lodge 34

420 Md. 141 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jun 20, 2011

With respect to the doctrine of sovereign immunity, the Court of Special Appeals determined that “the State has waived [such] ... immunity under limited circumstances in regard to claims based on written contracts,” as in … We explain. *161 In 1982, we rephrased a well-established rule: “[Ajbsent express legislative authority, a government agency cannot enter into binding arbitration or binding collective bargaining agreements establishing wages

Bacon v. State

322 Md. 140 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Feb 26, 1991

Id. 5 In any event, in the case before us, it is apparent from the State’s argument that it is content that a buck knife qualifies as a penknife. … In other words, the fact that the weapon is excepted by § 36(a) immunizes the person against criminality only with respect to that statute.

Breslin v. Powell

421 Md. 266 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Aug 16, 2011

The plaintiff must present expert testimony to establish the standard of care and to prove that the defendant breached that standard. Crockett v. Crothers, 264 Md. 222, 224-25 , 285 A.2d 612 [, 614] (1972). … Breslin states baldly in his brief, "[u]se of the word liability clearly implies summaiy judgment.”

St. Joseph Medical Center, Inc. v. Cardiac Surgery Associates, P.A.

392 Md. 75 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Apr 12, 2006

Cardiac Surgery maintains that the sole argument for appealability would be the collateral order doctrine, but that “the elements of the collateral order doctrine are not established.” (Cardiac Surgery’s brief at 2). … Howard County General Hospital, supra, 950 F.Supp. 141 , were also clearly in error.