Case law

United States v. H. E. Koontz Creamery, Inc.

232 F. Supp. 312 · District Court, D. Maryland · Aug 4, 1964

The Government also cites the well-established rule that the defense of limitations must be raised under the general issue, and not by a special plea in bar. United States v. Kissel, 1910, 218 U. … He “filed a special plea in bar claiming immunity from prosecution” because of testimony given by him before the grand jury in matters concerning the prosecution against him, and had thereby become immune.

United States v. Okeke

671 F. Supp. 2d 744 · District Court, D. Maryland · Nov 25, 2009

His sexual offenses thus clearly fall under the statutory period of five years. … The Court acknowledges that the Fourth Circuit has not expressly ruled on whether fourth degree sex offenses qualify as aggravated felonies; however, this Court finds the test established by the Seventh Circuit in Gattem

Hodgson v. J. W. Lyles, Inc.

335 F. Supp. 128 · District Court, D. Maryland · Dec 16, 1971

Defendants’ expert witness, an official of the National Association of Truck Stop Operators, stated that at each location sufficient services were available to qualify the establishment as a “full-facility truck stop”. … The facts show clearly that the truck stops with which we are dealing in this case offered many services seldom or never offered at ordinary gasoline service stations.

Montgomery v. Schweiker

529 F. Supp. 124 · District Court, D. Maryland · Nov 9, 1981

Although the fact patterns in the cited cases varied, the claimants in each of them shared a common inability clearly to express themselves and to articulate their medical history and present complaints; all of them lacked … The general validity of those regulations was established in this Circuit by the decision in Frady v.

Henry v. National Ass'n of Air Traffic Specialists, Inc.

836 F. Supp. 1204 · District Court, D. Maryland · Oct 27, 1993

Under Potomac Valve, the statements can still qualify as protected opinion if any one of the these three criteria is satisfied. … Thus, the four statements in Exhibit D do not qualify as protected opinion under the first Oilman factor.

Wonasue v. University of Maryland Alumni Ass'n

984 F. Supp. 2d 480 · District Court, D. Maryland · Nov 22, 2013

Corp., 50 F.3d 1261, 1264-65 (4th Cir.1995) (“In order to establish a violation of either [the Rehabilitation Act or the ADA], a plaintiff must prove: (1) that he has a disability; (2) that he is otherwise qualified for the … Networks Presentations LLC, 375 F.3d 266 , 273 n. 9 (4th Cir.2004) (“To establish a prima facie wrongful discharge claim under the ADA, a plaintiff must show that (1) [he] was a qualified individual with a disability; (2)

Tangires v. Johns Hopkins Hospital

79 F. Supp. 2d 587 · District Court, D. Maryland · Jan 10, 2000

Assuming that plaintiff were able to prove that she is a qualified individual with a disability, she would still be required to produce evidence establishing that defendant’s denials of reasonable accommodations in September … Clearly, no adverse employment action was taken by defendant when it refused to create a brand new position for plaintiff.

Rachelson v. Secretary, U.S. Department of Health & Human Services

834 F. Supp. 879 · District Court, D. Maryland · Sep 30, 1993

Plaintiff alleges that the woman hired is less qualified for the job than he. … His citation to this ease in inappropriate because he fails to even establish a prima facie case of discrimination.

Shields v. Prince George's County, Maryland

District Court, D. Maryland · Aug 2, 2019

In ruling on a defense of qualified immunity, a court must (1) identify “the specific right allegedly violated,” (2) determine “whether at the time of the alleged violation the right was clearly established,” and (3) if … established law, it may be that the qualified immunity question cannot be resolved” without weighing the evidence at trial.

Silver Hill Station Ltd. Partnership v. HSA/Wexford Bancgroup, LLC

158 F. Supp. 2d 631 · District Court, D. Maryland · Aug 21, 2001

qualified for a $41,400 loan. … By late July 1999, however, when it had its lawyer write to Wexford implying, if not outright suggesting, that a lawsuit was imminent, Siena was clearly more disposed to clash than close.

Davis v. Baltimore Hebrew Congregation

985 F. Supp. 2d 701 · District Court, D. Maryland · Nov 27, 2013

To establish a prima facie case of disparate treatment based on discriminatory discharge under the ADA, a plaintiff must show that (1) he was a qualified individual with a disability; (2) he was discharged; (3) he was fulfilling … To establish a prima facie failure to accommodate claim, a plaintiff must show that: (1) he was a qualified individual with a disability; (2) the employer had notice of his disability; (3) with the reasonable accommodation

Caire v. Conifer Value Based Care, LLC

982 F. Supp. 2d 582 · District Court, D. Maryland · Nov 8, 2013

However, InforMed is not clearly bound in this case. … Thus, the employer’s mere knowledge of his disability is inadequate by itself to establish the required causal connection for termination more than a year later. See Sharma v. Howard Cnty., No.

Hazeltine Corporation v. General Electric Co.

19 F. Supp. 898 · District Court, D. Maryland · Jul 17, 1937

(C.C.A.) 71 F.(2d) 628 , suffice it to say that these cases are clearly distinguishable. … Clearly that decision cannot be conclusive of the present controversy.

Lewis v. Florio

District Court, D. Maryland · Sep 26, 2022

Notably, Officer Florio does not raise the defense of qualified immunity with respect to the federal claims. … Cline, 863 A.2d 297, 305 (Md. 2004) (“Maryland common law qualified immunity . . . has no application in tort actions based upon alleged violations of state constitutional rights.”).

Middleton v. Frito-Lay, Inc.

68 F. Supp. 2d 665 · District Court, D. Maryland · Sep 27, 1999

“Unsupported allegations as to motive do not confer talismanic immunity from Rule 56.” Id. III. The standard for establishing claims of employment discrimination under either Title VII or § 1981 is the same. … Clearly Middleton has established that he is a member of a protected class, as he is a black male. The second and the third elements of the prima facie case however, require closer scrutiny.

The City of Norfolk

13 F. Supp. 511 · District Court, D. Maryland · Feb 3, 1936

(C.C.A.2) 77 F.(2d) 304 , where, however, the distinction between The Majestic and a case such as we have here is clearly pointed out by Circuit Judge Learned Hand. … True, once the doctrine is established that the passenger, by accepting such a contract of carriage, undertakes to abide by its terms, nice distinctions are sure to arise unless he is charged with all that appears at least

United States v. Furman

507 F. Supp. 848 · District Court, D. Maryland · Feb 12, 1981

Legal Background of Prosecutorial Misconduct Doctrine It has long been established that the courts are extremely reluctant to examine the evidentiary bases of grand jury indictments. … Finally, the sole case offered by the defendant to support his charge is clearly distinguishable on its facts. In United States v.

Cleveland v. Mercantile Trust Co.

45 F. Supp. 205 · District Court, D. Maryland · May 26, 1942

Clark as co-trustee, who duly qualified. Thereafter, from time to time, *206 some uncontested roultine orders were passed in the administration of the estate. Mr. … Thomsen promptly qualified.

Allnutt v. United States Deparment of Justice

99 F. Supp. 2d 673 · District Court, D. Maryland · May 23, 2000

He also requested “all documents within your office, your ‘other offices,’ and your ‘other establishments’ pertaining to this account.” The U.S. … The record also indicates that even if he had tried, Allnutt could not have established this link.

Janey v. N. Hess Sons, Inc.

268 F. Supp. 2d 616 · District Court, D. Maryland · Jun 24, 2003

In addition, the rationale behind the continuing violation doctrine clearly does not apply to this case. In Derriekson v. … Clearly, this is insufficient to establish that Hess Shoes had a standard operating procedure of discrimination.