Case law

Robinson v. Pleet

76 Md. App. 173 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jul 14, 1988

Appellant does not dispute that counsel failed to file the certificate of qualified expert within the applicable 90-day *176 period. … Under the facts herein, however, appellant clearly is not entitled to that same de novo proceeding.

Musick v. Musick

144 Md. App. 494 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · May 31, 2002

Clearly, that is what the parties intended when they stated that the “denomi *503 nator shall be the total number of months during which benefits were accumulated prior to the time when the payment of such benefits shall … Absent such a qualified order, not only will the pension plan administrator refuse to implement the court's decision, but ... there is at least a reasonable argument that a non-qualified order may be invalid even as between

Liberty Mutual Insurance v. Ben Lewis Plumbing, Heating & Air Conditioning, Inc.

121 Md. App. 467 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · May 27, 1998

Further, in light of Lewis’s legal obligation to read the policy, there was clearly no fraud in the inducement of the contract. … Thus the Federal rule, which seems to be clearly established, is that an affirmative defense may be raised for the first time by summary judgment motion when that motion is the defendant’s initial response to the plaintiffs

Matthew Bender & Co. v. Comptroller of Treasury

67 Md. App. 693 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jun 4, 1986

for the immunity of subsection (a). … Businesses immunized from taxation by the act are also protected from retroactive levies, except as already assessed. Note, 75 Harv.L.Rev. 953, 1008 (1961).

Bradshaw v. State

139 Md. App. 54 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jun 6, 2001

The prosecutor argued in response that the public policy that supports this interspousal immunity is limited to theft. It doesn’t extend further up the chain. There is no immunity for robbery. … Finally, clearly her liability is connected with that of Mr. Butler, and under those theories, as enunciated by the court, the Court will deny the motion.

Matter of the Comptroller

Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Nov 22, 2024

Because the timing of the refund claim was not controlled by TG § 13-1104, it is not necessary to decide the sovereign immunity issue. … Venue clearly is proper in Anne Arundel County. 4 Potomac Edison’s refund claim except for tax payments made between April 1, 2007 through July 31, 2007.

Heritage Harbour, L.L.C. v. John J. Reynolds, Inc.

143 Md. App. 698 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Apr 3, 2002

Tn support of their motions to dismiss, *710 appellees argued that appellants’ pleadings did not contain sufficient facts to establish appellants’ entitlement to relief. … We are clearly not faced with such a situation in the case at hand.

Madore v. Baltimore County

34 Md. App. 340 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Dec 30, 1976

In enacting the escape clause, § 18 (b), the legislature made no attempt to define what constitutes good cause, but clearly committed that determination to the discretion of the court. … Referring to the affidavit supporting the motion the Court said: “The showing does not necessarily establish mistake, surprise or inadvertence. It does suggest neglect.

Maryland Automobile Insurance Fund v. Lumbermen's Mutual Casualty Co.

148 Md. App. 690 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Dec 24, 2002

Moreover, as the plain wording of Section 20-502 indicates, MAIF is expressly prohibited from issuing policies to those who do not qualify. … It is “[a] power, privilege, or immunity secured to a person [or entity] by law.” BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY 1322 (1999).

Leake v. Johnson

204 Md. App. 387 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Mar 30, 2012

Appellees argue, however, that the court “erred in determining that there was a single occurrence where the evidence established two separate and distinct causes of Mr. Johnson’s injuries.” … Prince George’s County, 320 Md. 439, 452 , 578 A.2d 745 (1990), does not explicitly detail the petitioners’ argument in this regard, but we have reviewed the brief that petitioners filed, and it clearly sets forth this argument

Elliott v. Board of Trustees of Montgomery County Community College

104 Md. App. 93 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Mar 6, 1995

It noted, however, that, “While an employer need not establish personnel policies or practices, where an employer chooses to establish such policies and practices and makes them known to its employees, the employment relationship … Appellee claimed for the first time on appeal that this suit was barred under the doctrine of sovereign immunity..

Yount v. State

99 Md. App. 207 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jan 27, 1994

Meyers clearly passed that “helpfulness” test of admissibility. … The answer is clearly, “Yes.”

Dunn v. State

65 Md. App. 637 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Dec 17, 1985

keep his *650 freedom ‘as long as he conducts himself in a manner consonant with established communal standards and the safety of society’ ”. … Were it determined that the knife is not a penknife without switchblade, the inference drawn by the majority would clearly be rational.

Department of Public Safety & Correctional Services v. Shockley

142 Md. App. 312 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jan 31, 2002

The language of DCD 50-2IL, K.4. is unambiguous. 3 The words clearly establish that the agency retains the authority to require employees respond to questions that fall within the scope of “security purposes.” … On the issue of whether a statement is voluntary, [t]he ultimate test remains that which has been the only clearly established test in the Anglo American courts for two hundred years: *326 the test of voluntariness.

Maryland Department of Transportation v. Maddalone

187 Md. App. 549 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Aug 31, 2009

Thus, it stands to reason, and I conclude, that [Maddalone] has established that the only knowledge Secretary Porcari had of [him] ivas through politics and the media, and [Maddalone’s] politics were clearly conflicting to … The categories of employees within the MDOT are established in COMAR 11.02.02.01.

Boatel Industries, Inc. v. Hester

77 Md. App. 284 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Nov 30, 1988

Hester, while the broader terms of the Act may qualify the boat within the definition of “consumer product,” they clearly exclude Mr. Hester as a “non-consumer.” … Hester clearly did. The courts have interpreted this “resale” provision strictly. In Black v.

Rowley v. Mayor of Baltimore

60 Md. App. 680 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Dec 6, 1984

Although his salary was paid by the City to qualify him for a pension, the City was reimbursed for those payments by FMI. … The defense of governmental immunity was not raised. The activities involved in operating the convention center are clearly of a proprietary nature. 3 .

White v. State

11 Md. App. 423 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Mar 15, 1971

Even after the motion for a directed verdict is made, the party whose opening statement is thereby attacked will be afforded full opportunity to qualify or amplify the statement in order to repair any inadequacy. … Under the circumstances of this case, we cannot say that the error was clearly harmless.

Campbell v. Cushwa

133 Md. App. 519 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Aug 31, 2000

Appellees also relied on the doctrines of sovereign immunity, public official immunity, and State employee immunity. … In appellant’s view, these actions violated his “ ‘clearly established’ ex post facto rights.” PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND In Maryland, the DOC is responsible for the operation of the State’s penal system.

Rettman v. State

15 Md. App. 666 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jul 5, 1972

It was clearly established, however, that when appellant entered the room he had a 1940 model Luger in his belt which he was requested to remove before negotiations concerning the drugs took place. … The defense does not so much establish innocence as grant immunity from prosecution for criminal acts concededly committed. Here Carbajal goes free because what was done to him was done by a Government agent.