Case law

Lowery v. Smithsburg Emergency Medical Service

173 Md. App. 662 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Apr 5, 2007

Once established by the trial court, “qualified or conditional privileges in defamation cases are forfeited only upon a showing of actual malice; that is, a defendant who makes statements with knowledge of their falsity or … “Likewise, a judge must not allow the jury to consider the issue of ‘actual malice’ unless the evidence could establish ‘actual malice’ clearly and convincingly.” Id. (emphasis in original).

Md.-Nat'l Cap. P. & P. Comm'n v. Crawford

59 Md. App. 276 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jun 6, 1984

(b) the only reason why [Crawford] was not granted a transfer to which she was entitled under the rules and regulations and for which she was clearly the best qualified applicant, was that she was white. … The Commission's concurrence procedure reflects this concept by allowing a "clearly more qualified" non-minority candidate an equal opportunity for each available employment position.

Penhollow v. BD. OF COMMISSIONERS CECIL COUNTY

116 Md. App. 265 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jun 30, 1997

Section 5[-]321(b)(l) [of the Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article] grants immunity of the parties on the mere negligence basis and it’s clear under the law that you’ve got to allege facts clearly which show the official … It held that section 5—321(b)(1) of the Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article “grants immunity [to] the parties on the mere negligence basis and it’s clear under the law that you’ve got to allege facts clearly which show

Johnson v. State

18 Md. App. 571 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Aug 10, 1973

The rule seems so well established that an extended discussion of the cases is not warranted. See 50 C.J.S., Juries, § 249, 47 Am. Jur., *574 Jury, § 222. … Now, I have discussed with you the question of immunity, is that correct? A. Yes, sir. Q.

MCB Woodberry Developer v. Millrace Condo.

253 Md. App. 279 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Dec 16, 2021

CIVIL IMMUNITY – ANTI-SLAPP STATUTE – Bad faith under the Anti-SLAPP statute has the same meaning as under Md. … The Community Declaration established easements, covenants, and community assessments, and defined the common areas of the development.

Scarbrough v. Transplant Resource Ctr.

Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Aug 29, 2019

the Secretary to be reimbursed for the procurement of kidneys; (4) meet the requirements of federal law and have been certified by the Secretary within the prior four years “as meeting the performance standards to be a qualified … The deposition excerpts cited by appellants do not show bad faith, but merely establish the failed attempt to notify the Baylor College of Medicine about the donation. Seamans, 934 S.W.2d at 396.

Brooks v. Jenkins

220 Md. App. 444 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Dec 16, 2014

Vol.), § 12- 104(b) of the State Government Article (“SG”); see also CJ § 5-522(a) (establishing between the two sections the State’s immunity from suit for a state employee who has acted within the scope of employment … No cases we have found, however, offer any deeper insight on what range of motives might qualify as being “like” fraud or malice.

Rios v. Montgomery County

157 Md. App. 462 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jul 2, 2004

As the Supreme Court has instructed, it is clearly the prerogative of Congress, not the judiciary, to reform the terms and scope of waiver of sovereign immunity beyond that which Congress intended. … Nevertheless, the General Assembly has the power to establish the terms under which it will permit a waiver of immunity, and was not required to exempt minors from the notice provision.

State v. Meade

101 Md. App. 512 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Sep 1, 1994

For that same reason, we shall conclude that Officer Bewley has no statutory immunity and that he also enjoys no common law immunity. … The 1989 legislation, as enacted, was clearly effective to reinstitute the State’s sovereign immunity for conduct committed by Baltimore City police officers, among others.

Kennedy Temporaries v. Comptroller of Treasury

57 Md. App. 22 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jan 4, 1984

It also found, however, that Kennedy’s claim for damages was “barred by the doctrine of sovereign immunity.” … Precis We think that the Comptroller’s third argument is valid; Kennedy does not qualify as a “responsive” bidder, and thus has no legal status to challenge the award to Bay Services.

Baker v. O'Malley

217 Md. App. 288 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · May 27, 2014

Baker’s claims are barred by laches was clearly correct. The Court of Appeals observed in Ipes v. … “Whether the elements of laches have been established 10 is [a question] of fact, while the question of whether in view of the established facts, laches should be invoked

Athas v. Hill

54 Md. App. 293 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Apr 12, 1983

The employer on the other hand received immunity from general tort liability and damages and received an established basis for determining the extent of its monetary liability. … In short, they share Summit’s immunity from a suit at law.

State v. Fearing

30 Md. App. 134 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jan 30, 1976

You should clearly understand that you are not going to be compelled to testify and that you do not have immunity from prosecution. … This Court in Panagoulis stated: “We also think that there were no other circumstances shown sufficient to establish that the appellee otherwise waived immunity by his conduct.

Doe v. Doe

122 Md. App. 295 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jun 29, 1998

the rule [of inter-spousal immunity] continues to be viable is clearly before us. … Doe does not qualify as extreme and outrageous within the meaning of the tort.

Lindenmuth v. McCreer

233 Md. App. 343 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jul 26, 2017

Unlike a qualified privilege, a plaintiff may not overcome a defendant’s absolute privilege by establishing that a defamatory statement was made with actual malice. … the qualified privilege.

Diallo v. State

186 Md. App. 22 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jun 4, 2009

“A” or “G” visas might be entitled to privileges and immunities in the United States, although such immunity could not be conclusively established from the existence of the visa alone. Id. … The State argues that, even if appellant had established his right to diplomatic immunity, the exclusion of his statement would be an inappropriate remedy.

Whalen v. Mayor & City Council of Baltimore

164 Md. App. 292 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Sep 16, 2005

Noting that “recreational purpose” is defined at N.R. § 5 — 1101(f) as “ ‘any recreational pursuit,’ ” appellee argued that Whalen’s use of the Park to allow her dog to relieve itself was “clearly a recreational purpose.” … To establish the location of the hole, the City relied on the deposition testimony of appellant’s expert, John Rekus.

Torres v. State

95 Md. App. 126 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Feb 3, 1993

That case established that a warrantless arrest in a home (or functional equivalent) is invalid, absent exigent circumstances. … New York does not confer upon the suspect immunity from subsequent lawful arrest. Once the suspect is outside the protected premises, therefore, the initially invalid restraint ripens into valid restraint.

Koprivich v. State

1 Md. App. 147 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Apr 10, 1967

In light of the facts in this case, Mary Koprivich’s statement clearly meets this test. She was no stranger to the legal process due to prior encounters with the police. … The general rule, well established in this State, is that an extrajudicial confession or statement of the accused does not warrant a conviction, unless there is, also, independent evidence to establish the corpus delicti.

Montgomery County Career Fire Fighters Ass'n v. Montgomery County

210 Md. App. 200 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Mar 4, 2013

The underlying purpose of establishing an orderly budget system with clearly delineated responsibility was the rationale behind the Court’s holding in Foster Children, where it stated: The provisions of the Budget Amendment … The Court explained that it may overrule its own precedent when a decision is “clearly wrong and contrary to established principles” or “when there *234 is a showing that the precedent has been superseded by significant changes