Case law

Lankford v. County Commissioners

73 Md. 105 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Nov 13, 1890

The qualified veto power is conferred upon the Governor for a substantial and important purpose, — to restrain and defeat hasty and inconsiderate legislation. … For in the absence of express or clearly implied limitation, the force of established practice, to aid in construction, is fully recognized in the cases to which we have referred. *117 2.

Burning Tree Club, Inc. v. Bainum

305 Md. 53 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Dec 23, 1985

In this context, the word “rights,” according to commentators, “includes all forms of privileges, immunities, benefits and responsibilities of citizens.” 80 Yale L.J., supra, at 908. … As our cases clearly demonstrate, state action does not violate the E.R.A. unless it has the effect of abridging or denying “equality of rights under the law” on the basis of sex.

Comptroller of the Treasury v. Fairchild Engine & Airplane Corp.

227 Md. 252 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Dec 20, 1961

The configurations and quantity of the hardware (missiles, ground equipment, etc.,) will be such that they are suitable for use in the flight program established by the Contractor. * * *. … It could hardly be contended that the nature and theory-of the tax is altered by the fact that the ultimate consumer is. immune.

Simkus v. State

296 Md. 718 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Sep 8, 1983

Further, proper safeguards were imposed on the hypnotic session which was conducted by a qualified clinical psychologist.” Judge Fischer also referred to the guidelines laid down in State v. … Hurdel here was in accord with statements which it was clearly demonstrated she made prior to hypnosis.

Rome and Modo v. State

236 Md. 583 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Nov 19, 1964

At the trial of the defendants, the other participants (all of whom had been given immunity) were used by the State as witnesses against the defendants. … Clearly, the defendants were not in any way prejudiced by the action of the police.

Hare v. David S. Brown Enterprises

Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jul 28, 2025

Baltimore County, 487 Md. 282, 316 n.21 (2024) (stating that the petitioner “has waived any argument that the Defendants waived or failed to preserve their argument concerning qualified immunity”). … Hare can establish a prima facie case of discrimination.

Brashears v. Lindenbaum

189 Md. 619 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jan 21, 1948

Aside from the affidavits filed here, there is no showing that appellants are qualified. … In the case at bar the statute itself furnishes a specific guide, and clearly limits review by the Circuit Court to cases where there was some arbitrary action or abuse of discretion by the Board.

Marzullo v. Kahl

366 Md. 158 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Oct 12, 2001

The facts of the case clearly demonstrate that the raising, breeding, and marketing of the Boas and Pythons do not require the use of the land in an agricultural sense. … The preceding definitions clearly do not include respondent’s business as an activity that occurs on a farm.

Sutton v. Crain

10 G. & J. 458 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Dec 15, 1839

On the contrary, we suppose it to be the establishment of a principle, which is to govern like cases when they are presented. … And wdiere it in the second place occurs, it is connected with the word hire- — “hire or use;” — the term use being there qualified by its connexion with the word “hire;” as if the testator had been apprised, that without

Tighe v. Osborne

149 Md. 349 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Dec 10, 1925

of the applicant ; that property immediately in the rear of the site of' the proposed stable is improved by frame dwelling houses,, being separated from the property of the applicant only by a three-foot alley; that the establishment … It cannot he pretended that the citizen has not the common law right to acquire title to a lot of land, qualified or absolute, in a city as elsewhere and to build upon, and improve it as his taste, his convenience or his

Archbishop of Washington v. Doe

Court of Appeals of Maryland · Feb 3, 2025

The General Assembly then changed that limitations period to the later of 20 years after the victim reaches the age of majority or three years after the date the defendant is convicted of a qualifying crime. … Majority Opinion at 34-38. 4 Then, despite the fact that the Anderson case had clearly stated that “a statute of repose provide[s] an absolute bar to an action or … a grant of immunity to a class of potential defendants

Coughlin v. Cuddy

128 Md. 76 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Feb 15, 1916

The hypothetical question propounded to> these witnesses covers seven pages of the record, and was clearly inadmissible. … The proof, we think, clearly brings this case within the rules and requirements established by the adjudged cases to constitute a valid deed or contract and the rulings of the Court below will be affirmed; Gesell v.

Miller v. County Commissioners of Carroll County & Grier

226 Md. 105 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jul 7, 1961

Grier was the man whom they selected as well qualified to give them such help. … That office is clearly authorized by Ch. 304 of the Acts of 1959, but there is a question as to whether the Commissioners have created it.

State v. City of Baltimore

199 Md. 289 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Oct 1, 1993

Rosoff had complied with all relevant provisions of the workmen’s Compensation Act and claimed immunity from suit. … Wallace, 4 Cir., 172 F. 2d 802 , relied on by the appellant, is clearly distinguishable on the facts, for Sears was not in the building trade at all.

State v. Baltimore & Ohio Railroad

127 Md. 434 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jan 13, 1916

Co. acquired its rights and immunities of taxation from the Acts of 1854, Chapter 250, or after the adoption of the Constitution of 1851, and therefore, these immunities then granted were a subject-matter over which the Legislature … The Act of 1878 granted no additional immunity to the Eailroad Company above that contained in its original charter.

State v. Good Samaritan Hospital of Maryland, Inc.

299 Md. 310 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Apr 11, 1984

Therefore, one attacking the statute’s validity has the burden of affirmatively and clearly establishing its invalidity. Salisbury Beauty Schools v. St. Bd., 268 Md. 32 , 300 A.2d 367 (1973). … It clearly is not a special law; it does not meet the first condition of § 33 of Article III of the Maryland Constitution. All hospitals offering foot care and all podiatrists are treated alike.

Bd. of Education Of Harford Cnty. v. Doe

Court of Appeals of Maryland · Feb 3, 2025

The General Assembly then changed that limitations period to the later of 20 years after the victim reaches the age of majority or three years after the date the defendant is convicted of a qualifying crime. … Majority Opinion at 34-38. 4 Then, despite the fact that the Anderson case had clearly stated that “a statute of repose provide[s] an absolute bar to an action or … a grant of immunity to a class of potential defendants

Peters and Demby v. State

187 Md. 7 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jul 23, 1946

The State clearly met that burden in the instant case by the testimony of all the officials present when the testimony was taken. … We rejected the contention made on the rule and reaffirmed the doctrine established in the League case, supra.

Application of Overall

456 Md. 525 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Dec 18, 2017

He disclosed this conviction on his Maryland Bar [A]pplication, but with the qualifier that it was “pending reversal due to lack of jurisdiction.” … The Court concluded that the Declaration does not “establish the relevant and applicable rule of international law.” Id. at 735.

Key School v. Bunker

Court of Appeals of Maryland · Feb 3, 2025

The General Assembly then changed that limitations period to the later of 20 years after the victim reaches the age of majority or three years after the date the defendant is convicted of a qualifying crime. … Majority Opinion at 34-38. 4 Then, despite the fact that the Anderson case had clearly stated that “a statute of repose provide[s] an absolute bar to an action or … a grant of immunity to a class of potential defendants