Case law

Wells v. State

100 Md. App. 693 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jun 10, 1994

without malice or gross negligence, and (3) for which the State has waived immunity. … In an oft-quoted statement, the Roth Court made clear that “[t]o have a property interest in a benefit, a person clearly must have more than an abstract need or desire for it.

Simmons v. Comfort Suites Hotel

185 Md. App. 203 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Mar 31, 2009

If the words of a statute clearly and unambiguously delineate the legislative intent, ours is an ephemeral enterprise: we need investigate no further but simply apply the statute as it reads. … A home security system clearly does not constitute surgical treatment. And Ms. Simmons does not contend that it falls in the category of attendance, as enumerated in § 9-660(a)(l).

Maryland Department of the Environment v. Days Cove Reclamation Co.

200 Md. App. 256 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Aug 30, 2011

during [the established permit review *278 process], that evidence should be ignored, even where it clearly supports the issuance of a permit.” … The case at bar is clearly distinguishable, however.

Bishop v. State

39 Md. App. 384 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · May 12, 1978

The nature of the record is such that Morton’s testimony, though it varied in some aspects from that of Hargest, clearly corroborated it. … The issue was properly before him and we do not find his decision to have been clearly erroneous. Md. Rule *393 1086.

Donnenberg v. State

1 Md. App. 591 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Aug 3, 1967

a rebuttable presumption that any person found violating the statute in any bookstore or mercantile establishment and found to be an employee of the person actively engaged in the operation of such an establishment, was … S. 413 establishes the following test for obscenity: Three elements must coalesce; it must be established that: 1) The dominant theme of the material taken as a whole appeals to a prurient interest in sex. a) where the material

Happy 40, Inc. v. Miller

63 Md. App. 24 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · May 9, 1985

We recognize that, “[w]hether a defamatory statement is entitled to a qualified privilege is a question of law for the court, but whether that qualified privilege has been abused is generally a question of fact for the jury … The conditional privilege that all parties agreed existed in this case was clearly for the purpose of permitting Booher *36 to explain to his remaining employees the reason for the appellee’s discharge.

Dunham v. Elder

18 Md. App. 360 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jul 9, 1973

Herzmark was never qualified as an expert witness at the trial and his testimony was solely that of an examining physician. Dr. … Clearly, their testimony was insufficient to establish what was the standard of medical care and skill required of a general practitioner in Prince George’s County, or for that matter, in Maryland, in the year 1967.

Bricker v. State

80 Md. App. 532 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Nov 2, 1989

This determination is clearly a subject on which the fact finder can receive appreciable help from an expert. … The trial judge is given broad discretion in making this determination but may be reversed if founded on an error of law, an evidentiary error, or if the trial judge clearly abused his or her discretion. Stebbing v.

Ecolono v. Division of Reimbursements of the Department of Health & Mental Hygiene

137 Md. App. 639 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Apr 2, 2001

The motion to dismiss was based on the ground that the Eleventh Amendment precluded the action, and with respect to the 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims, on the ground that the defendants enjoyed qualified immunity. … The court concluded that, because the law did not clearly proscribe the actions of the defendants, the defense of qualified immunity barred the claims. Id. In Fetterusso v.

Ledford v. Jenway Contracting

Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Nov 30, 2023

The Court found that the uncontradicted evidence established that the decedent’s death had occurred during the course of her employment. Id. at 457-58. … (establishing time limitations on civil actions); CJP § 5-401 et seq. (limiting actions against certain businesses, associations, and charities); CJP § 5-501 et seq.

Furr v. Spring Grove State Hospital

53 Md. App. 474 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jan 7, 1983

Since they further concede that we may not overturn the doctrine of sovereign immunity, Macy v. Heverin, 44 Md. App. 358 (1979), there is nothing for us to answer. … The general absolution of an individual from the "moral obligation of common decency and common humanity, to come to the aid of another human being who is in danger” Prosser, at 340, seems clearly established in Maryland,

Potomac Electric Power Co. v. Smith

79 Md. App. 591 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jun 8, 1989

We begin our constitutional analysis by reiterating the established principle “that a person may only assert his own constitutional rights or immunities.” Clark v. … This court held that "while clearly negligent, [defendants’ conduct] was not so extraordinary or outrageous as to raise that conduct to the qualitative level necessary to establish a foundation for punitive damages.”

Puppolo v. Adventist Healthcare, Inc.

215 Md. App. 517 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Dec 19, 2013

With regard to Adventist, Puppolo failed to identify an expert, and therefore there was no expert testimony to establish the standard of care. … It is clear from the court’s discussion on the record that its decision was not “clearly against the logic and effect of facts and inferences before the court.”

Lee v. State

59 Md. App. 28 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · May 8, 1984

We will dispose of the appeal from the first conviction without much discussion as the evidence clearly was sufficient to convict Lee of theft. … Under this traditional approach to larceny, the rule of “possessorial immunity” was fundamental in defining the contours of larceny.

Wilcox v. Orellano

217 Md. App. 417 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jun 24, 2014

Orellano responds that the language of the preclusion provision (§ 5-119(a)) clearly covers a voluntary dismissal by stipulation. … SB 309 (2007) (first reading). 7 To interpret rules of procedure, we “use the well-established axioms of statutory construction.

Adkins v. Peninsula Regional Medical Center

224 Md. App. 115 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jul 30, 2015

Specifically, the ADA establishes that “[n]o covered entity shall discriminate against a qualified individual on the basis of disability in regard to job application procedures, the hiring, advancement, or discharge of … App. at 583 (“Establishing that one is ‘otherwise qualified’ for a job necessarily entails a consideration of whether one would be qualified if his [disability] were accommodated by the employer.” (citing Md.

D'ANGELO v. St. Agnes Healthcare, Inc.

157 Md. App. 631 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jul 15, 2004

Plaintiffs further contended that the experts’ certificates clearly applied “to the claims against St. … But clearly in this case, we didn’t look at it as being a significant time-saving effort to start small and to add.

Malarkey v. State

188 Md. App. 126 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Oct 2, 2009

So the analysis of his conduct must be done in the context of his performance of his duties which means that, again, he has in a civil context what would be called qualified or discretionary immunity. … The prosecutor continued: “Qualified immunity doesn’t even apply here.

East Coast Conference of the Evangelical Covenant Church of America, Inc. v. Supervisor of Assessments

40 Md. App. 213 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jul 18, 1978

After determining to make a major effort to establish new churches in areas where the church was not well known, the Conference selected the Washington, D. C. Metropolitan Area as a project area. … Fourth Edition: “A certain portion of lands, *216 tithes and offerings, established by law, for the maintenance of the minister who has the cure of souls. Tomlins.

Williams v. Maryland Department of Human Resources

136 Md. App. 153 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Dec 28, 2000

According to appellant, “the evidence of record establishes at the very least a question of fact on each and every element necessary to establish a prima facie case of discrimination under Title VII.” … Specifically, he contends that there was sufficient evidence that he was more qualified than Heaton, and that the Department failed to follow its own rules and procedures in the promotion process, to establish that appellees