Case law

State v. Young

Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Mar 27, 2025

Md. 2021) (dismissing “on common law sovereign immunity grounds” and discussing Rosa). … Mullaly’s testimony to establish a Longtin claim against the State.

Andre v. Montgomery County Personnel Board

37 Md. App. 48 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jul 12, 1977

Two applicants were rated ‘Well-Qualified’ and six were rated ‘Qualified’. Mr. Andre was among the eight qualified applicants, with a rating of ‘Qualified’. … The Board decided, “that the Department of Recreation and the Personnel Office acted with complete disregard for established merit system procedures with regard to the processing of applications, recruitment, selection, establishment

Jones v. Jones

172 Md. App. 429 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jan 26, 2007

Jones was not entitled to qualified immunity; that Cpl. Jones was negligent in causing the decedent’s death; that the decedent was contributorily negligent; and that Cpl. … Defense counsel also made arguments about qualified immunity, which the court rejected.

Lewis v. Baltimore Convention Center

231 Md. App. 144 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Dec 1, 2016

Sovereign immunity functions differently in contract. H. Dean Bouland, Recent Legislation: Abrogation of Sovereign Immunity in Contract Cases in Maryland, 6 U. Balt. L. Rev. 338, 342 (1977). … The Class decided for its own reasons to pursue claims in federal court before suing in state 3 Art. 23A § 1A was, and CJ § 5-5A-01 is, the provision waiving sovereign immunity and establishing a one year limitations

Spell v. State

7 Md. App. 121 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jun 3, 1969

In rebuttal Catania denied that he or any officer in his presence had offered the appellant immunity from prosecution of other offenses if he gave a statement as to any one particular offense and offered him no immunity whatsoever … clearly erroneous.

White v. Spring

109 Md. App. 692 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · May 6, 1996

Standard of Review The Court of Appeals, in a case involving a denial of a use permit, stated, “It is a clearly established rule in the law of zoning that a court may not substitute its judgment for that of the Zoning Board … Commission ... concurred with my determination that the proposed change ... qualifies as a refinement to the County’s Critical Area Program.

Himelstein v. Arrow Cab

113 Md. App. 530 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Feb 3, 1997

Although appellees believe that our standard of review should be to determine whether the trial judge was “clearly erroneous” in her fact finding mission, this case clearly involves our determination of whether the trial … SELF-INSURED TAXICAB ASSOCIATIONS Every vehicle registered in Maryland must have liabili-. ty insurance “to promote the established legislative policy ... *537 that seeks to assure that victims of automobile accidents have

Nixon v. State

96 Md. App. 485 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jun 4, 1993

Hawkins was qualified to teach in two departments, while appellant was qualified to teach in only one. Dr. … Appellant’s oral testimony establishes that under the merit system she was not as qualified as Dr. Hawkins and, in any event, did not meet the requirements for advancement.

Mass Transit Administration v. Maryland Commission on Human Relations

68 Md. App. 703 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Oct 10, 1986

Whether the doctrine of sovereign immunity precludes the imposition of a back-pay award against the MTA. VI. Whether the court erred in awarding prejudgment interest. VII. … , therefore, failed to establish a prima facie case for handicap discrimination.

McClanahan v. Washington County Department of Social Services

218 Md. App. 258 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jul 31, 2014

Immunity Finally, appellant claims that she should be granted immunity, because she was required to report child abuse to the Department. Again, appellant failed to raise such issue before the ALJ. … A legal defense, such as immunity, that does not appear in the statute or in the implementing regulations does not qualify as integral and can be waived. Thus appellant’s immunity claim has not been preserved.

State Department of Assessments & Taxation v. North Baltimore Center, Inc.

129 Md. App. 588 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jan 4, 2000

With respect to the fourth factor, the Tax Court clearly considered it, but its conclusion is less clear. … In Rivera , this Court considered whether the State Health Department, a governmental agency, was a charitable organization for purposes of charitable immunity.

Fields v. State

172 Md. App. 496 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Feb 2, 2007

He asserts that the State was able to resolve its immunity issues within one day when the proceedings would not go forward unless it did so and the immunity of witnesses was raised over five months before the scheduled February … As we have mentioned, Wilson and McCoy are unable to establish that the delay, clearly of constitutional dimension, in any way impaired their ability to present their defense.

In re: K.Y.B.

Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Aug 30, 2019

immunizations.” … evidence, the chancellor granted legal and physical custody to the father, granted liberal visitation rights to mother, and ordered the father to allow the children to attend a Jewish day school as long as the children qualified

Harden v. Mass Transit Administration

27 Md. App. 590 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jul 25, 1975

Appellants brush aside the suggested defense of the State’s immunity to suit upon the ground that such immunity was waived by statute in that: (1) Article 64B, § 8 a declares that the Administration shall: “Have perpetual … We do not, however, see this case as one turning upon a question of immunity to suit and do not reach the issue.

Board of Trustees of Fire & Police Employees Retirement System v. Kielczewski

77 Md. App. 581 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jan 5, 1989

Because it clearly prescribes a condition precedent to the award of a special disability retirement, it undoubtedly is substantive. … Clearly, one who is physically, but not mentally, disabled, may nevertheless be totally and permanently incapacitated.

LaSalle Bank, N.A. v. Reeves

173 Md. App. 392 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Mar 2, 2007

The List is maintained by the Department of the Interior (“DOI”) and the DOI is granted jurisdiction to add to, or delete from, the list particular tribes or nations, in compliance with the procedures established by the federal … Those statements clearly reflect the state of Maryland law.

Blondes v. State

16 Md. App. 165 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Sep 11, 1972

“This case is not a blanket holding by any means, because it is not before me, of members of the legislature who might be on salaries or on established retainers. … In fact, this was not a statutory change but an evolution of the common law firmly established in both England and the United States at the time of the adoption of the Maryland statute.

Higginbotham v. Public Service Commission

171 Md. App. 254 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Oct 26, 2006

[The Chairman] undertook to terminate plaintiffs employment unilaterally, and despite the fact that the full Commission was not consulted or involved in any manner, as was required by clearly established law. … Nonetheless, he knowingly proceeded in disregard of the clearly established law, sending plaintiff and the discharged employees into unemployment, despite years of dedicated service. * * * *274 COUNT ONE (Maryland Declaration

Wiggins v. State

22 Md. App. 291 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Aug 7, 1974

Baltimore City, on the other hand, chose to retain the provision of its local law first enacted in 1902, 2 *293 which established 16 as the maximum age for juvenile jurisdiction in Baltimore City. … Sovereign Immunity Appellant argues that we should refuse to recognize the State’s immunity from suit since “ . . . neither the purpose of this doctrine nor justice is served by applying it to the instant circumstances.”

Downs v. ROMAN CATH. ARCHBISHOP OF BALT.

111 Md. App. 616 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Sep 25, 1996

Even where the dispute actually presented to the court is one that, if presented by any other set of litigants, would clearly be justiciable, if the resolution of that dispute between the litigants at hand would require the … We need not go as far as the Yaggie Court and hold that “all matters” touching the clergyman/church relationship are of ecclesiastical concern, immune from civil jurisdiction.