Case law
Opinions from 1658 to today.
2,460 results
1.06s
Department of Public Safety & Correctional Services v. Ara Health Services, Inc.
107 Md. App. 445 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Dec 27, 1995
In the Board’s view, this established that the parties consciously chose to abide by the terms of the original Contract for the period in issue. The circuit court reversed. … Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission, 284 Md. 503, 512 , 397 A.2d 1027 (1979) (no waiver unless the Legislature provides for one clearly or by necessary and compelling implication).
Cited 18 timesPublished131 Md. App. 588 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Apr 26, 2000
are plainly arbitrary or clearly erroneous. … Based on its factual findings, the court’s award was not clearly erroneous. See Lemley v.
Cited 12 timesPublished199 Md. App. 305 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jun 2, 2011
established rights, privileges, and immunities secured to them by the Declaration of Rights of the Constitution of the State of Maryland, including but not limited to Articles 2, 19, 24, 26, and arising under the laws and … The acts alleged herein violated clearly established constitutional rights of the Plaintiffs and Brandon Clark, were not objectively reasonable, and were done under circumstances in which no reasonable officer would fail
Cited 3 timesPublished143 Md. App. 293 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Mar 28, 2002
In Karl, 100 Md.App. at 56 , 639 A.2d 214 , we stated: In Wyndham, [supra], the claimant’s failure at arbitration was clearly not due to any deliberate refusal to present sufficient evidence. … (xi) Denying immunity asserted under § 5-525 or § 5-526 of this article. 13 . The arbitration system implemented by the Act has been held constitutionally sound. Attorney Gen. v.
Disapproved on other grounds by Salvagno v. Frew, 388 Md. 605 (2005)Cited 8 timesPublishedBarber v. Catholic Health Initiatives, Inc.
174 Md. App. 314 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Apr 30, 2007
Filing of claim; appointment of arbitrators; arbitrators’ immunity from suit. *333 (a) Filing of claim and response — (1) A person having a claim against a health care provider for damage due to a medical injury shall file … The Walzer Court reasoned that, when the Legislature enacted C.J. § 3-2A-04 (b)(1)®, it “clearly intended for claims to be dismissed if the claimant failed to file the certificate of qualified expert within 90 days of filing
Vacated on other grounds by CATHOLIC HEALTH INITIATIVES INC. v. Barber, 400 Md. 396 (2007)Cited 5 timesPublished234 Md. App. 288 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Sep 29, 2017
App. 348, 945 A.2d 656 (2008), Judge Battaglia’s opinion reiterated that, since 1997, a paternity status established by an affidavit of parentage enjoys essential immunity from a challenge based on genetic evidence. … Whereas the appellant obsesses over the word “mistake,” our concern is with the qualifier “material.” All mistakes are not the same; some are more material than others.
Cited 2 timesPublishedGables Construction v. Red Coats
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.
Cited 0 timesPublishedO'Brien & Gere Engineers, Inc. v. City of Salisbury
222 Md. App. 492 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Apr 28, 2015
It concluded that because the absolute litigation privilege protects a public right, an individual cannot waive it: Since the absolute litigation privilege is a firmly established right of immunity designed to protect the … Clearly, the target defendants in the case were OBG and CDG. .
Cited 11 timesPublishedA+ Gov't. Solutions v. Comptroller
Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Mar 31, 2022
While CNI may not be obliged to complete a Form 1120 for the federal government, CNI and its subsidiaries are clearly required to do so in order to complete the Maryland return. … CNI Technical Services and A+ Government Solutions were not qualified or registered to do business in Maryland during 2012.
Cited 0 timesPublished55 Md. App. 373 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jul 12, 1983
The value of marital property has not been "acquired,” and therefore is immune from distribution, to the extent that the source of funds employed to finance the property is an outstanding debt, irrespective of how the debt … Harper established that "acquire” means "the on-going process of making *380 payment for property.”
Cited 18 timesPublished22 Md. App. 673 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Sep 20, 1974
established. … “THE WITNESS: I do not feel that an architect is qualified to perform structural engineering inspection. “BY MR. LAYNE: “Q. Who is the professionally qualified person to do that, sir? “A.
Cited 34 timesPublished58 Md. App. 510 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Apr 12, 1984
The establishment of basic procedures for interrogations, investigations, and hearings is not the same as limiting the causes for which an officer may be dismissed. … To the extent that Counts II through VII allege causes of action, they are clearly in tort.
Cited 53 timesPublished1 Md. App. 548 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Aug 1, 1967
Ed. 2d 694 (1966) has applicability to the present case since it has been clearly established by Johnson v. New Jersey, 384 U. S. 716 , 16 L. Ed. 2d 882 , and Westfall v. … obvious on its face, the burden falls upon the State to establish that the jury panel has been properly impaneled.
Cited 6 timesPublished146 Md. App. 183 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Sep 4, 2002
immunity does not apply? … Chief Judge Marbury said the following about that asserted rationale for the doctrine: It applies to a post-bellum situation a theory which is clearly only applicable to conditions prior to the difficulty which caused the
Reversed on other grounds by Bozman v. Bozman, 376 Md. 461 (2003)Cited 4 timesPublished40 Md. App. 557 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Nov 3, 1978
Rev. 910 (1936), as follows: “The rules sought to be established [in determining whether a given function is *568 governmental or proprietary] are as logical as those governing French irregular verbs.” … Charter Article VII, Sections (61) through (64) spell out the general powers and duties of the Department of Recreation and Parks, and the operation of a day camp center is clearly authorized within these powers and duties
Cited 4 timesPublishedWashington Suburban Sanitary Commission v. Pride Homes, Inc.
47 Md. App. 390 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Dec 15, 1980
As the Court pointed out, its discourse in that case was necessary to distinguish a previous holding which clearly established the law applicable to the case at bar. … Katz was addressing whether the WSSC was immune from suit. 1 Neuenschwander was analyzing the WSSC’s right to sue, which is precisely the subject of the instant case.
Cited 2 timesPublishedEnviro-Gro Technologies v. Bockelmann
88 Md. App. 323 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Sep 5, 1991
It further stated that, even if the sludge was fertilizer, its storage did not qualify as a conditional use. … established rule in the law of zoning that a court may not substitute its judgment for that of the Zoning Board.”
Cited 12 timesPublished237 Md. App. 540 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jun 27, 2018
in court or before grand juries and other governmental agencies is firmly established in Anglo-American jurisprudence. … The defense of duress is not established by proof that the defendant had been threatened with violence at an earlier time.
Cited 2 timesPublished210 Md. App. 615 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Mar 22, 2013
Thus, at trial, [appellee] relied on other evidence, including Arc Environmental’s testing results, to establish the presence of lead-based and flaking paint at the property. … On June 30, 2011, Mankowitz filed a reply memorandum in support of his motion for summary judgment, again arguing that he was entitled to statutory immunity.
Disagreed with in part by Levitas v. Christian, 454 Md. 233 (2017)Cited 6 timesPublishedW. C. & A. N. Miller Development Co. v. Honaker
40 Md. App. 185 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jul 17, 1978
Appellant pleaded the general issue and raised the defense of immunity under Art. 101, § 15 of the Maryland Workmen’s Compensation law. … The evidence clearly shows appellant to be a builder of residential homes and as far as the DeJanikuses are concerned, a house built to the customer’s specifications.
Cited 12 timesPublished
Ask Donna