Case law

Carey v. Jackson

165 Md. 472 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jan 9, 1934

That all appears clearly from sections 203A to 203Q of the City Charter, article 4 of the Code of Public Local Laws, and from the opinion of Judge Parke in Strott v. Broening, 160 Md. 560 , 154 A. 45 . … The purpose of the ordinance was the establishment and organization of the Bureau of Control and Accounts.

Schuele v. Case Handyman & Remodeling Services, LLC

412 Md. 555 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Feb 19, 2010

In fact, Respondents assert that the only requirement not clearly established is that the order would be effectively unreviewable on appeal from a final judgment. … Moreover, we held in Dawkins that “interlocutory trial court orders rejecting defenses of common law sovereign immunity, governmental immunity, public official immunity, statutory immunity, or any other type of immunity,

Hecht v. Crook

184 Md. 271 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jan 10, 1945

He held the office by successive appointments of three years each until March 1, 1943, and continued to serve as a holdover until October 18, 1943, when his successor qualified. … Under subsection (7) it is authorized, subject to the limitations of the Article, to establish rules and regulations for the transaction of its business.

Rasin v. State

153 Md. 431 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jul 8, 1927

suggested in the appellant’s brief, it would be difficult for the jury, in deciding the question of admissibility, not to be influenced by the confession itself, which they ought not to hear unless its admissibility is first clearly … established to the satisfaction of the court.”

State Ex Rel. Frederick City Police Department v. One 1988 Toyota Pick-Up Truck Vin. JT4RN63A5J0211499

334 Md. 359 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Mar 15, 1994

do not fall within any of the standards or conditions established by the statute. … The initial language of subsection (i), which introduces the standards that follow, clearly establishes that further limitation: (i) In exercising the authority to seize motor vehicles pursuant to this section the following

Gordon v. Commissioners of Montgomery County

164 Md. 210 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Feb 15, 1933

The exercise of that power may be validly delegated by the Legislature to a municipal corporation or other qualified agency of local government. Rossberg v. State, 111 Md. 394 , 74 A. 581 ; Tighe v. … It is clearly within the powers and duties which the Constitution declares may be conferred upon county commissioners.

President of Washington & Baltimore Turnpike Road v. State

19 Md. 239 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Dec 17, 1862

This proposition is clearly *288 erroneous. … We have confined ourselves thus far to the consideration of the privileges, immunities and liabilities of the appellant under the Act of 1812.

Attorney Grievance Commission v. McLaughlin

372 Md. 467 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Dec 24, 2002

McLaughlin clearly violated the ethical duty required by Rule 1.4. … If the applicant was unable to qualify for Medicaid, McLaughlin provided various alternative remedies: G. Return of Fee if unable to qualify for Medicaid: 1.

Gregg v. Mayor of Baltimore

56 Md. 256 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · May 26, 1881

This instruction was clearly right, and no objection has been made to it by the appellants. … That prayer was granted by the Court of Common Pleas, as qualified however by the third and fifth prayers of the appellees, which seem to have been intended to instruct the jury, 1st, that it was the duty of the appellants

State v. Knowles

49 L.R.A. 695 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Feb 15, 1900

Would it not necessarily be construed “shall,” or “must,” in conformity with the established rule of law that where the duty to be performed, is for the benefit of the public or third persons, it shall be so construed ? … The origin and development of this elementary rule is clearly set forth in Sifford v. Morrison, 63 Md. 18 , and many of the cases are there cited in which it has been recognised and applied.

Schiller v. Lefkowitz

242 Md. 461 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · May 11, 1966

The trial court gave the District a summary judgment on the ground of sovereign immunity, which *468 had been the Illinois law for a long period. … The intermediate court affirmed, but the Illinois Supreme Court overruled its prior decisions as to sovereign immunity and reversed.

Davis v. Dipino

337 Md. 642 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Mar 13, 1995

Nevertheless, “judicial immunity is not a bar to prospective injunctive relief against a judicial officer acting in [his or] her judicial capacity.” Pulliam v. … The issues decided by those cases at the appellate level are clearly distinguishable from the instant case in which the Court of Special Appeals granted a motion to dismiss when the grant of a motion for summary judgment

Salsburg v. State

201 Md. 212 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Feb 5, 1953

is to-day more indifferent to its liberties than it was when the immunity was born. … The State can establish any system of laws it sees fit *223 for all or any part of its territory, provided that it does not encroach on the jurisdiction of the United States, and does not abridge the privileges and immunities

University System of Maryland v. Mooney

407 Md. 390 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Feb 20, 2009

713 [1979], “when the Legislature enacts a comprehensive remedial scheme in which a claim is to be determined by an administrative agency and reviewed in an administrative appeal before judicial review is available, it establishes … Clearly, the language of “receiver, trustee, guardian, personal representative, fiduciary, or representative of any kind” does not include only the person awarded the procurement contract, but third parties representing the

Attorney Grievance Commission v. Shaw

363 Md. 1 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Feb 13, 2001

qualified.” … Such knowledge does not qualify as “personal” knowledge sufficient to require recusal.

Peninsula Regional Medical Center v. Adkins

448 Md. 197 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · May 26, 2016

PRMC criticizes the intermediate appellate court’s decision in this case for permitting Adkins to use reassignment as “a means to establish [that] she is a qualified individual with a disability” and relies on Gaither, … It acknowledged that an employee does not have to establish that he or she is a qualified individual with a disability to kick off the interactive process.

Rounds v. Maryland-National Capital Park & Planning Commission

441 Md. 621 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jan 29, 2015

Apart from this limited waiver of immunity, the LGTCA does not waive any preexisting immunity against suit held by the local government or its employees. Hansen v. … In this case, Petitioners clearly failed to establish that the non-joined parties met the MIE exception. 25 Because Counts V–XI were dismissed without prejudice, a remand

Trotman v. State

466 Md. 237 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Oct 18, 2019

Third, the trial court must “determine [whether] the defendant has established purposeful discrimination.” Id. at 98 (footnote omitted). … The circuit court’s finding was not clearly erroneous.

Chevy Chase Savings & Loan, Inc. v. State

306 Md. 384 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jun 5, 1986

That notice by its terms was only to be effective upon Chevy Chase’s qualifying for federal insurance. … This conclusion is clearly required, I think, in a mutual company, by the difference between the character of a matured claim and the character of a policy reserve.

Reed v. President of North East

226 Md. 229 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jul 13, 1961

The term begins when the Treasurer qualifies, and it expires when his successor qualifies. … The case before us clearly seems to come within the purview of the Tar Products Corp. case, supra, and not that of Scrivner .