Case law

Palmore v. Baltimore & Ohio Railroad

156 Md. 4 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jun 21, 1928

In support of that contention the appellant said: “So far as it deals with the claims for wages or salaries actually earned, it is clearly an unwarranted interference with the owner’s liberty of contract and right of property … And while there should be no paltering with any real assault upon the rights, privileges, and immunities guaranteed to the citizen by the constitution of this state or of the United States, on the other hand there can be

Belle Isle Cab Co. v. Pruitt

187 Md. 174 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Oct 30, 1946

For the reasons stated in this Court’s opinion, the driver of the station wagon clearly was negligent. … . *185 They did not intend to establish there an unqualified stop intersection.

University of Maryland Medical System Corp. v. Waldt

411 Md. 207 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Nov 10, 2009

The Court agrees the witness may qualify as an expert without actual experience. … As this Court has previously held, “[i]t is the general rule that the admissibility of expert testimony is within the sound discretion of the trial judge and will not be disturbed on appeal unless clearly erroneous.

State v. Hyman

64 L.R.A. 637 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Feb 19, 1904

The power to enact and enforce them is lodged by the people with the government of the State, qualified only by such conditions as to the manner of its exercise as are necessary to secure the individual citizen from unjust … while we hold that this power of control by the Courts is one to be most cautiously exercised, we are yet of opinion there may be a case in which an ordinance passed under grants of power like those we have cited, is so clearly

Matoumba v. State

390 Md. 544 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jan 12, 2006

Rule 5-101 establishes the applicability and scope of the Rules of Evidence. The 2003 version of the Rule, effective at the time of petitioner’s hearing, provides as follows: “(a) Generally. … In Maryland, the law was the same. 1 We said in Farrow , *551 “On the question of the guilt or innocence of the defendant it clearly is hearsay and hence is inadmissible; but on the issues of probable cause and the lawfulness

Anderson v. Baker

23 Md. 531 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Nov 2, 1865

Whether their action is dependent upon the subsequent ratification of the people or not., is not clearly established; but when ratified and adopted,, or acquiesced in, their acts are unquestionably within the limits prescribed … a particular and limited operation is to be given to the words “ privileges and immunities,” not a full and comprehensive one.

Widgeon v. Eastern Shore Hospital Center

300 Md. 520 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Aug 21, 1984

It has long been held that where a statute establishes an individual right, imposes a corresponding duty on the government, and fails to provide an express statutory remedy, a traditional common law action will ordinarily … But they qualified the concession by insisting that, while equitable remedies were available in an appropriate case, money damages were not.

Berry v. Safe Deposit & Trust Co.

96 Md. 45 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Dec 3, 1902

Can it be possible that a combination of all of those incidents will establish a conclusion which no one of them tends to prove ? … And it was clearly not competent as a foundation for the impeachment of the credibility of the plaintiffs’ own witness.

Motor Vehicle Administration v. Aiken

418 Md. 11 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jan 25, 2011

The question we decide in the present case is whether, as part of that prima facie case, the MVA must establish the validity of the test by providing evidence that the test was administered by a “qualified person,” as that … Notwithstanding the clarity with which the General Assembly has spoken in subsection (f)(7)(ii) of the Statute, Respondent argues that the MVA also must establish that the test result was obtained by a “qualified person”

Board of Dental Examiners v. Lazzell

172 Md. 314 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Apr 9, 1937

By way of answer the board either flatly admitted or denied the statements of fact and legal conclusions, and, as they are clearly enough stated in the petition, it is not necessary to repeat them, except to say that the … The petitioner demurred to the answer, his first ground being the usual “bad in substance and insufficient in law,” and the second in effect that the Act of 1933 granted those licensed prior to that time immunity from any

Hazlehurst v. Mayor of Baltimore

37 Md. 199 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Dec 20, 1872

Thus the very proviso which creates the highway qualifies it by the reservation of these rights. … of this extent it was to be, and in truth is, “incomplete, qualified and limited,” as was said in Page’s case.

Hutson v. Hutson

168 Md. 182 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Feb 6, 1935

“The immunities of a tenancy by the entireties can be enjoyed only by a lawfully married pair.” Mitchell v. Frederick, 166 Md. 42 , 170 A. 733, 736 . … established.

Piselli v. 75th Street Medical

371 Md. 188 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Oct 8, 2002

Where a person clearly has a right to money or property under a statute or common law principle, and no statute specifically provides for a remedy, Article 19 guarantees a common law remedy to enforce the right. … McLean, 346 Md. 464, 484 , 697 A.2d 468, 478 (1997) (parent-child immunity); Johnson v. Maryland State Police, supra, 331 Md. at 297 , 628 A.2d at 168 (State sovereign immunity); Sanner v.

Tyma v. Montgomery County

369 Md. 497 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jun 14, 2002

and retaining qualified employees and promoting employee loyalty.” … Similarly, the regulations implementing the FMLA state, “an employer must observe any employment benefit program or plan that provides greater family or medical leave rights to employees than the rights established by the

Pem Construction Co. v. Mayor of Baltimore

233 Md. 372 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jan 28, 1964

At the hearing before the Board several qualified experts appeared for the appellant. … An officer of the appellant corporation, a qualified architect, testified that it would not be feasible to build homes on the two parcels.

State Ethics Commission v. Evans

382 Md. 370 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jul 30, 2004

The present case clearly is distinguishable from these cases. First, application of § 15-405(e) to Evans impairs no vested right. … Under the Majority’s view, the presumption against retroactivity successfully may be invoked whenever a statute or licensing scheme operates on past events in any way, ignoring the qualified definition and caveat of caution

State Board of Elections v. Snyder ex rel. Snyder

435 Md. 30 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Sep 27, 2013

The latter term, “all elections,” clearly refers to any election and was the quoted textual basis for the Capozzi Court’s holding. See id. … Section 3-102 was amended by Acts of 2010, ch. 8, § 1, to more clearly state this provision. Section 3-102 (2003, 2010 Repl.

Hewitt v. Maryland State Board of Censors

243 Md. 574 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jul 22, 1966

But whatever his status in life may be, his qualifications can not be assumed; they, must be established by evidence. … Indeed, his answer, in response to the call for his opinion, indicates quite clearly that it was merely a personal reaction. He said, “I feel that it does appeal to the prurient interest of people.” (Emphasis supplied.)

Mazer v. State

231 Md. 40 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Mar 4, 1963

Miss Standlee was granted immunity by the State. Mazer’s trial was one of a series of cases based upon indict *44 ments returned following a grand jury investigation of “The Block.” … The jury was amply apprised by the testimony of the activities of the State’s witness and of the fact that she had been granted immunity.

Walker v. Acting Director

284 Md. 357 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Feb 13, 1979

This case establishes once again that “there is nothing new under the sun.” 2 Harness v. Chesapeake & O. Canal Co., 1 Md. … This immunity of the State from suit rests upon grounds of public policy, and is too firmly fixed in our law to be questioned.