Case law

CC of Baltimore Co. v. Patient First Corp.

219 Md. App. 69 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Aug 29, 2014

McCoy was not identified, or qualified, as an expert, but the court allowed him to “express an opinion as to whether the bill [was] reasonable.” It asserts that Mr. … Cadle Co. of Ohio, Inc., 848 P.2d 1079, 1083-84 (1993) (General Counsel qualified to testify with respect to the reasonableness of attorneys’ fees).

Bass v. Rohr

57 Md. App. 609 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jun 7, 1984

Conversely, in those cases where such immunity has not been so extended, two types of reasons have emerged: “Either the record failed to establish that the involved agency, while possessed of certain judicial or quasi-judicial … As we observed initially in this discussion, the privilege available to parties and witnesses, whether absolute or qualified, evolves from, and is part of, the common law governing actions for defamation.

Sindorf v. Jacron Sales Co.

27 Md. App. 53 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jun 25, 1975

The transcript of the trial clearly shows that the parties considered the Virginia corporation to be the actual defendant. … “If it has relatively less weight from a social point of view, the immunity may be qualified, and conditional upon good motives and reasonable behavior.

Noble v. State

238 Md. App. 153 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jul 25, 2018

The immunity covered by the 2014 legislation clearly covered, in subsection (c), a person experiencing an overdose when another person called for medical assistance. … In the bill enacting CP § 1-210(c), the legislature clearly intended to provide limited immunity from arrest, charge, or prosecution, to a person experiencing an overdose if the evidence was obtained solely as a result

State v. Holton

193 Md. App. 322 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jul 1, 2010

According to the State, this is because the Court of Appeals clearly held, in Wicomico County v. … Thus, the State contends, without any further argument or explanation that, at most, if a local legislator is entitled to any immunity in a criminal prosecution, it would be qualified immunity.

Hosmane v. Seley-Radtke

227 Md. App. 11 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Feb 24, 2016

To establish a prima facie case of the common law tort of defamation in Maryland, a plaintiff must establish four elements: (1) that the defendant made a defamatory statement to a third person, (2) that the statement was … The Court of Appeals then went on to adopt a standard of negligence for cases of purely private defamation and enunciated clearly that the quantum of proof by which the plaintiff must establish the fault of the defendant

State, Comptroller of Maryland v. Shipe

221 Md. App. 425 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Feb 3, 2015

As stated above, pursuant to the principle of sovereign immunity, the General Assembly must expressly waive the State’s immunity, in a state statute, in order for the statute of limitations to apply. … . § 13-806 does not waive the State’s immunity and clearly indicates that a tax lien “continues to the date on which the lien is: (1) satisfied; or (2) released by the tax collector. . . .”

Foor v. Juvenile Services Administration

78 Md. App. 151 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Feb 3, 1989

extent and in the amount that the State is covered by a program of insurance established by the Treasurer pursuant to § 27 of Article 95.” … The first and third of these elements are clearly, in our view, satisfied. The question arises as to the second.

Bunch v. Robinson

122 Md. App. 437 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jul 1, 1998

’s establishment of federal judicial power. … On the other hand, the Supremacy Clause clearly allows properly enacted federal law to supersede state law.

State v. Johnson

108 Md. App. 54 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Feb 1, 1996

Even if the State owed a duty to develop such a plan, was the court clearly erroneous in finding the State Hable for negligence under the Maryland Tort Claims Act? … To the extent that the court’s determination was based on fact, it was clearly erroneous.

Gooslin v. State

132 Md. App. 290 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · May 31, 2000

U.S. 1 , 108 S.Ct. 849 , 99 L.Ed.2d 1 (1988) (a statutory classification reviewed under the rational basis standard enjoys a strong presumption of constitutionality and will be invalidated only if the classification is clearly … claim is one for which the State and its units have waived immunity under subsections (a) and (b) of this section; (ii) a judgment or settlement has been entered granting the claimant damages to the full amount established

CCI Entertainment, LLC v. State

215 Md. App. 359 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Dec 18, 2013

The State contends that the circuit court’s order compelling the General Assembly to disclose documents for in camera review violated “the State’s sovereign immunity, the speech and debate clause, and the absolute legislative … These observations, alone, establish a rational basis for § 3’s use of February 28, 2008.

Green v. N.B.S., Inc.

180 Md. App. 639 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jul 2, 2008

Cline, 384 Md. 245 , 863 A.2d 297 (2004), the Court was called upon to decide whether “the Maryland Tort Claims Act grants qualified immunity to state personnel for tortious ads or omissions, within the scope of the state … The Lee Court said: While this Court has not, until today, directly decided whether intentional torts and constitutional torts are covered by the Maryland Tort Claims Act, thereby granting state personnel qualified immunity

Jackson v. Dackman Co.

181 Md. App. 546 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Sep 10, 2008

Appellees did not fully comply with the Statute and, thus, are not entitled to qualified immunity. … Appellants are clearly mistaken, as this Court has previously held “that violations of the Consumer Protection Act are in the nature of a tort action.” MarryCLE, *584 LLC v.

Helinski v. Rosenberg

90 Md. App. 158 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jan 29, 1992

Shapiro’s testimony, which, if accepted, would have established on a prima facie basis Rosenberg’s negligence in repeating the defamatory remarks. … Helinski also must establish that Rosenberg’s statements damaged him.

Boyd v. Hickman

114 Md. App. 108 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Feb 21, 1997

Are the Defendants entitled to a qualified immunity defense for their violations of Maryland Constitutional Law? II. … immunity with regard to the constitutional claims.

Bagheri v. Montgomery County

180 Md. App. 93 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · May 6, 2008

ANALYSIS It is established Maryland common law that [a] “local governmental entity is liable for its torts if the tortious conduct occurs while the entity is acting in a private or proprietary capacity, but, unless its immunity … Clearly, the City would have been liable to suit if its negligent maintenance of the driveway had led to the injury of the truck drivers who used it to pick up trash and *100 garbage from the rear of the school, of the operators

Kitt v. State

2 Md. App. 306 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Nov 2, 1967

Craft further testified that he was promised immunity from prosecution by the State in return for his testimony. … In any event, the proposed agreement between Craft and the State was clearly established in open court by Craft’s testimony. Judgment affirmed.

Smith v. Edwards

46 Md. App. 452 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Sep 5, 1980

Governmental immunity was not even discussed. Appellants also allege that their actions were without malice and thus individual council members were entitled to qualified immunity. … We are unable to follow the argument because qualified immunity applies to actions for tort and has no application to acts which are ultra vires.

Gables Constr., Inc. v. Red Coats, Inc.

241 Md. App. 1 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · May 10, 2019

evidence establishing that GCI breached the standard of care. … In some cases, the contract may clearly express an intended third party beneficiary, see Schlicht v.