Case law

Huber v. Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Company

241 F. Supp. 646 · District Court, D. Maryland · May 18, 1965

I therefore conclude that the better view is that dependent illegitimate children should be compensated unless such compensation conflicts with a clearly enunciated state policy. Hammond v. Pennsylvania Ry. … that the State has a duty to ameliorate the deprived social and economic status of children born out of wedlock and that the policies and procedures as contained in this subtitle and in § 66 of this article relative to establishing

White v. Hofferbert

88 F. Supp. 457 · District Court, D. Maryland · Feb 3, 1950

In the instant case the facts clearly establish that the taxpayer, as a foreign service officer of the I. T. & T. … Vacations or business trips to the United States during the taxable year will not necessarily deprive a taxpayer, otherwise qualified, of the exemption provided by this section. * * * ”, (Italics supplied.) 4 .

Jackson v. Wolfe

District Court, D. Maryland · Feb 18, 2025

failed to establish constitutional violations by Defendants, and Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. … Maddox United States District Judge 4 Because Defendants’ Motion succeeds on the stated grounds, the Court need not address their qualified immunity argument

Ellicott City Cable, LLC v. Axis Insurance Co.

196 F. Supp. 3d 577 · District Court, D. Maryland · Jul 22, 2016

If the underlying claims are clearly covered by the insurance policy, then the insurer is obligated to defend the insured. Id. … An insured, however, may use extrinsic evidence to establish the potentiality of coverage. Id. at 866; see also Walk v. Hartford Cas. Ins.

Burnett v. Maryland Department of Labor(DLLR)

District Court, D. Maryland · Sep 24, 2025

Eleventh Amendment Immunity Defendant argues that it is immune from this suit under the Eleventh Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. … Plaintiff cites no legal authority establishing any applicable consent to Plaintiff’s suit by the DLLR or the Maryland state government.

Varga v. United States

467 F. Supp. 1113 · District Court, D. Maryland · Apr 5, 1979

The statute clearly does not allow an exemption based solely upon an individual belief, albeit a conscientious and sincerely held one. *1117 The legislative history of § 1402(g) conclusively demonstrates that Congress did … This provision provided assurance that those qualifying for the exemption would be otherwise provided for in the event of their dependency.

Doe v. Lally

467 F. Supp. 1339 · District Court, D. Maryland · Mar 5, 1979

Bensinger, [ 522 F.2d 720 ] supra, recklessness under Section 1983 comprehends only an objective standard: whether the conduct is with “such disregard of the [plaintiff’s] clearly established constitutional rights that [the … Such cases must obviously be treated on an individual basis; however, with the duties now clearly spelled out, the likelihood of a good faith or immunity defense prevailing has substantially diminished.

Jackson v. State of Maryland

171 F. Supp. 2d 532 · District Court, D. Maryland · Oct 16, 2001

In order to establish a prima facie case of failure to promote, Plaintiff must show that: (1) she is a member of a protected group; (2) she sought the position in question; (3) she was qualified; (4) she was rejected under … Nonetheless, Plaintiff has failed to establish a prima facie case of failure to promote. She has not established that she was qualified for the position of R.S. IV.

Maryland Transit Administration v. National Railroad Passenger Corp.

372 F. Supp. 2d 478 · District Court, D. Maryland · Jun 6, 2005

The parties said it clearly within the four corners of the document presented to this panel as the basis for its decision. … See In re Pegasus Gold Corp., 394 F.3d 1189, 1195 (9th Cir.2005) ("[Sovereign] immunity is not absolute, however, and ‘a State may waive its sovereign immunity by consenting to suit. Coll. Sav. Bank v. Fla.

Jacobs v. Bd. of Educ. of Prince George's Cnty.

376 F. Supp. 3d 575 · District Court, D. Maryland · Mar 21, 2019

It neglects to call my attention to any evidence establishing that the Board was not Pickard's employer, or that some other entity was. … "Scope of employment" was plainly at issue there, because the Maryland statute expressly immunized state employees acting "within the scope of [their] public duties." Id. at 469 (quoting Md.

Davis v. Lockheed Martin Operations Support, Inc.

84 F. Supp. 2d 707 · District Court, D. Maryland · Feb 29, 2000

Clearly, this position relied upon group work involving sporadic “face time,” both internally among Lockheed staff and between the Lockheed and SSA staffs. … Lockheed has established it is entitled to this safe harbor as a matter of law.

White v. Bloomberg

345 F. Supp. 133 · District Court, D. Maryland · Jun 23, 1972

As such, it is an establishment existing independently of the executive branch of the United States 15 with the power “to sue and be sued in its official name.” 16 Further, the sovereign immunity of the United States has … While courts will not disturb an administrative interpretation or application of a regulation unless the same is clearly erroneous, Jno. McCall Coal Co. v.

Works v. Colvin

93 F. Supp. 3d 405 · District Court, D. Maryland · Feb 20, 2015

A plaintiff must establish that she (1) is a “qualified individual with a disability;” (2) was “discharged;” (3) was “fulfilling [her] employer’s legitimate expectations at the time of discharge;” and (4) the “circumstances … Second, the record clearly reveals that the SSA granted each' of Works’s disability-related requests for leave. See Def.’s Mot. for Summ. J., Exs. 31, 38.

Gladden

District Court, D. Maryland · Jun 8, 2026

One is a Motion for Leave to File a Surreply, ECF 39, which Plaintiff filed in response to Defendants raising qualified immunity for the first time in their reply. … Defendants have failed to establish clear error causing manifest injustice, however, as to the claim against Hichkad in her individual capacity.

Marcantoni v. Sodd

District Court, D. Maryland · Apr 26, 2022

ECF No. 83-1, but do not discuss the Fourth Circuit’s remand decision. 4 The timing of the Andrews decision may be relevant to any qualified immunity defense. … The County Defendants are free to revisit the qualified immunity defense at the close of discovery. of the progress of this case.

Boardley v. Household Finance Corp. III

39 F. Supp. 3d 689 · District Court, D. Maryland · Aug 14, 2014

Fatally, Plaintiffs fail to claim that they were qualified for the line of credit they sought. See id. … Defendants also challenge whether any of the alleged statements qualified as misrepresentations to satisfy the first element of the claim.

In Re Medimmune, Inc. Securities Litigation

873 F. Supp. 953 · District Court, D. Maryland · Jan 10, 1995

Plaintiffs contend that such statements were false and misleading because, given the flaws in the design of the study, the efficacy of the drug was not in fact established, something Defendants knew or should have known. … Moreover, the fact of the patient deaths was clearly disclosed by Defendant Mott in his statement of April 27, 1993. 12 .

Welsh v. Weinberger

407 F. Supp. 1043 · District Court, D. Maryland · Dec 18, 1975

Thus, plaintiff has not established his entitlement to benefits in that manner. … However, since those values are more stringent than those in the interim adjudicatory regulations which plaintiff was unable to meet, plaintiff clearly cannot qualify under that criterion.

Logan v. United States

851 F. Supp. 704 · District Court, D. Maryland · May 9, 1994

It was also established to the satisfaction of the *710 Magistrate Judge, who did not clearly err in so finding, that Mr. … A number of witnesses on both sides, well-qualified to opine on the issue, gave the Magistrate Judge the benefit of their opinions. In the end, he chose to accept the conclusion that the hunting sites were baited areas.

Curtis v. DPSCS

District Court, D. Maryland · Jun 14, 2021

In order to establish a claim under either of these statutes,19 “a plaintiff must prove: (1) that he has a disability; (2) that he is otherwise qualified for the . . . benefit in question; and (3) that he was excluded from … Therefore, in order to establish that he is disabled under both the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act, Plaintiff must establish that: “he has a physical or mental impairment; that this impairment implicates at least one major