Case law

Sturdivant v. Maryland Department of Health & Mental Hygiene

207 Md. App. 33 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Aug 31, 2012

In rating qualified applicants, an appointing authority “may use any appropriate selection process,” but the “unit must be able to establish the job relatedness, reliability, and validity of the selection tests that it uses … In conclusion, SPP § 7-203 clearly states that an agency can fill vacancies by recruitment or selection from an existing list of eligible candidates.

Robinette v. Hunsecker

212 Md. App. 76 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · May 29, 2013

Title III, 29 U.S.C. § 1201 et seq., establishes ERISA’s administrative and enforcement provisions. … This caveat is in keeping with an earlier statement of the Court in a similar vein: “[T]here is no simple test for ascertaining whether an institution is so closely related to governmental activity as to become a tax- *112 immune

McLean Contracting Co. v. Maryland Transportation Authority

70 Md. App. 514 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Mar 6, 1987

Rather than filing an appeal with the MSBCA, clearly an option available to it, McLean started over again in the circuit court. … Section 25 clearly preserves whatever dispute resolution procedures contracts entered into before July 1, 1981 contain.

Goettee v. Steele

71 Md. App. 520 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jun 9, 1987

Appellate review of such matters is limited; we may not set aside factual findings of the lower court unless they were clearly erroneous. Md.Rule 1086. … No longer does the mere presence of these qualifiers irrefutably establish that the parties intended to hazard the risk of excess or deficiency however great. For example, the court in Witmer v.

Roe v. Doe

193 Md. App. 558 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jul 7, 2010

The distinction is also applied to the time limit for asserting claims under a statute waiving sovereign immunity. See Higginbotham v. … The Court held that the new rule, being clearly remedial, had a retrospective sweep. 362 Md. at 554 , 766 A.2d at 108-09 .

Bancroft Information Group, Inc. v. Comptroller of Treasury

91 Md. App. 100 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Apr 6, 1992

They argue that the regulation allows the Comptroller too much discretion to decide what qualifies as a newspaper and is thus exempt from the sales tax. … any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities

Conway v. State

15 Md. App. 198 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Apr 21, 1972

The questions posed to Johnson by the State were directed primarily to the grant of immunity. … We believe that the evidence presented by the State was not only sufficient to send the matter to the jury for its consideration, but that it was overwhelmingly and clearly established that the wilful, wanton and malicious

D'ANNA v. Secretary of Personnel

47 Md. App. 180 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Nov 12, 1980

It merely gives the Secretary the authority to promote qualified individuals from within the organizational units in preference to those on an eligible list. … This section is clearly meant to apply when promotion is not involved and no qualified candidates have been found through the competitive system.

Green v. State

8 Md. App. 352 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Dec 12, 1969

To prove the legality of the arrest, the State showed through the testimony of a qualified narcotics investigator, Detective John Sewell, that on October 16, 1968 he received information from a known, police-paid informer … The trial judge held that the State’s evidence clearly satisfied this test. We agree. See McCray v. Illinois, 386 U. S. 300 ; Beck v. Ohio, 379 U. S. 89 ; Draper v. United States, 358 U. S. 307 ; Wells v.

Beahm v. Erie Insurance Exch.

Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jan 30, 2024

The definition contemplated clearly two distinct situations. When the named insured is an individual, the person who signed the Subscriber Agreement is a subscriber. … The named insured was identified clearly on the declarations page as Starboard, a corporation. Beahm was not identified as a named insured.

Bricker v. Bricker

78 Md. App. 570 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Mar 8, 1989

The conclusions that are drawn therefrom are not clearly erroneous, we must affirm. Rule 8-131(c). MEDICAL INSURANCE The parties had been granted a limited divorce on December 19,1985. … Simpson, 18 Md.App. at 628 , 308 A.2d 410 ; the amount had to be established based on the circumstances as of the date of the award, Benner v.

Raymond International, Inc. v. Baltimore County

45 Md. App. 247 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Apr 11, 1980

Whether the County’s motion raising preliminary objection was improperly granted on the issue of sovereign immunity? V. … The record extract, we think, clearly establishes that the major contract items in this contract were the preplaced aggregate contract amount of $115,000 and the removal of the fender systems amounting to $34,000 and totaling

Rose & Crown, Ltd. v. Shaw Enterprises, Inc.

28 Md. App. 548 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Nov 5, 1975

The Court’s emphasis was placed upon whether or not the tenant was misled by the acceptance: “In any event the landlords’ actions clearly established a no waiver policy. … clearly expressed, and obviously understood, intention to the contrary as in the case at bar.

Barnes v. Greater Baltimore Medical Center, Inc.

210 Md. App. 457 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Mar 21, 2013

They argued that there was no evidence establishing that if Dr. Rustía had sent Mr. Barnes to the main emergency room the first time he went to the hospital, Mr. … Barnes clearly suffered on January the 27th was proven, preventable.” The court concluded, *467 [Dr.

United Parcel Service, Inc. v. Comptroller of Treasury

69 Md. App. 458 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Dec 9, 1986

As a result, the Tax Court ruled that UPS qualified for the interstate commerce exemption. … We agree and hold that the statute and relevant regulations clearly exempted UPS’s package vans from the assessment of sales and use taxes. A.

Hernandez v. State

7 Md. App. 355 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jul 2, 1969

His statement that appellant and Sanders were similar in appearance to the men who robbed him was qualified by his testimony at the suppression hearing, and before the jury, that he could not make a positive identification … Vucci — arrested with appellant and also indicted for the robbery— testified under a grant of immunity that at approximately the time the robbery was committed, he was in a car with appellant and Sanders “in the vicinity”

Montgomery Investigative Services, Ltd. v. Horne

173 Md. App. 193 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Mar 12, 2007

Baltimore Baseball Club, 250 Md. 482, 486 , 243 A.2d 533 (1968), Judge Singley had similarly stated for the Court of Appeals: *205 Communications arising out of the employer-employee relationship clearly enjoy a qualified … Gohari, 130 Md.App. 265, 274 , 745 A.2d 1134 (2000) (“Communications arising out of the employer-employee relationship clearly enjoy a qualified privilege.”); Shapiro v.

Hinebaugh v. Garrett County Memorial Hospital

207 Md. App. 1 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Aug 31, 2012

CJP section 3-2A-02(c) is entitled “Establishing liability of health care provider; qualifications of persons testifying.” … (Clearly, he is not board certified in the “same specialty” as any of them.)

Gardner v. State

41 Md. App. 187 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jan 12, 1979

The conviction of a single conspirator in a conspiracy case where all co-conspirators were: 1) granted immunity, Hurwitz v. State, 200 Md. 578 (1952); 2) enjoyed diplomatic immunity, Farnsworth v. … Our review of the record finds that the trial judge was amply justified in finding that the evidence “clearly established that Mr. Gardner did, in fact, unlawfully solicit and incite Mr. McDonald to murder Mr.

Wilson v. State

124 Md. App. 543 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jan 27, 1999

Although the trooper was qualified to administer the HGN test and, to that extent, was properly received as an expert, HGN testing may not be used to establish a specific blood alcohol level. … As we mentioned earlier, the State never propounded any questions to the trooper to establish that he was qualified to ascertain a specific blood alcohol level based on HGN testing.