Case law

Bonomo v. National Duckpin Bowling Congress, Inc.

469 F. Supp. 467 · District Court, D. Maryland · Mar 23, 1979

No bowling establishment may conduct a sanctioned event unless a tournament director or executive of the NDBC is actively in charge of the event. … As the court stated in Greenfield, 4 EPD at p. 5932, the statutory definition clearly describes the activities of an employment agency in the traditional and generally accepted sense of that term, that is, any agency in the

Maryland Minority Contractor's Ass'n v. Maryland Stadium Authority

70 F. Supp. 2d 580 · District Court, D. Maryland · Sep 30, 1998

for summary judgment on the issues of qualified immunity and discriminatory motive. 2 Before filing their opposition, the plaintiffs moved for continuance under Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(f), alleging they could not respond to the … Clearly then, the injury-in-fact prong of the standing inquiry has not been met.

Massey Ex Rel. Smith v. Weinberger

397 F. Supp. 817 · District Court, D. Maryland · Apr 7, 1975

That illegitimates may take as between themselves is clear, but the statute does not purport to be a legitimation statute, as Sec. 6 of the same Article clearly is. … That’s—the reconsideration determination clearly states open and notorious 2 . This citation refers to the 1957 edition of the Annotated Code of Maryland, as amended.

Dickson v. United States

240 F. Supp. 583 · District Court, D. Maryland · Apr 2, 1965

The language of the decedent’s will does not clearly and unambiguously establish that decedent’s intention was to give a bequest to his wife conditioned upon her continued life as the Government argues. … The language of the will clearly and unambiguously establishes that the interest was limited only by the time of final accounting and settlement.

Edgewater Realty Co. v. Tenn. Coal, Iron & Railroad Co.

49 F. Supp. 807 · District Court, D. Maryland · Mar 31, 1943

Summarized, we find that the weight of the credible evidence establishes the following facts: The Tennessee Company and the Carnegie-Illinois Steel Corporation are subsidiaries of the United States Steel Corporation. … State, there remains to be considered the point whether, even assuming our conclusion is correct that what these representatives and employees did amounted to “doing business” within the State, the Tennessee Company was not immune

Rhoads v. Federal Deposit Insurance

956 F. Supp. 1239 · District Court, D. Maryland · Feb 22, 1997

At the time of Rhoads’s termination, SFSA’s personnel policies clearly stated that employees terminated for cause were not due cash representing accrued vacation pay. … Additionally, the record in this case clearly indicates that Rhoads was considered a valuable employee.

Estate of Alcalde v. Deaton Specialty Hospital Home, Inc.

133 F. Supp. 2d 702 · District Court, D. Maryland · Mar 5, 2001

Plaintiffs amended complaint clearly complies with the requirements of “notice pleading.” Conley, 355 U.S. at 47 , 78 S.Ct. 99 . … D Defendants contend that plaintiff failed to submit a timely certificate of qualified expert to HCAOM.

Woody

District Court, D. Maryland · Sep 11, 2026

Plaintiff's conclusory assertions fail to establish either. … Defendant additionally invokes a qualified immunity defense which will not be addressed here; Defendant may reassert his qualified immunity defense in his renewed motion, supported by appropriate authority.

Lanza v. State of Maryland

District Court, D. Maryland · Jan 31, 2020

First, Simpkins is a state prosecutor, who is entitled to absolute immunity when deciding whether and who to prosecute; second, Simpkins is entitled to qualified immunity in her individual capacity because she did not … violate a clearly established statutory or constitutional right; and third, the Complaint fails to state a plausible claim against Defendants.

Johnson v. Md. Dep't of Labor

386 F. Supp. 3d 608 · District Court, D. Maryland · Apr 29, 2019

The ADA prohibits discrimination and retaliation against qualified individuals on the basis of disability. See 42 U.S.C. §§ 12112 , 12203(a) (2006). … In any event, the facts here do not establish conclusively that Plaintiff failed to cooperate. He clearly did not wholly fail to cooperate with the EEOC.

Carroll v. United States

625 F. Supp. 1 · District Court, D. Maryland · Jun 18, 1982

In other cases, the government has challenged the existence of so-called “chronic” or “relapsing” GBS. 3 In this particular case, the scientific evidence clearly establishes that one of the many forms of GBS, although relatively … Once again, the proof has not been sufficient to establish plaintiff’s entitlement to this item of damages.

Jones v. Queen Anne's County, Maryland

District Court, D. Maryland · Mar 7, 2025

immunity. … Only if a constitutional claim has been alleged should we proceed to the determination of whether qualified immunity shields the defendant from liability.” Young v.

Smith v. DCA Food Industries, Inc.

269 F. Supp. 863 · District Court, D. Maryland · Jun 5, 1967

DCA, the Local, the Union, and the National Bank of Washington (Trustee), a District of Columbia corporation qualified to do business in Maryland and the trustee under the pension fund, established by the collective bargaining … The views expressed by the Supreme Court in Humphrey clearly establish that the action herein involves rights and obligations which may be litigated by the plaintiff-employees under the aegis of section 301.

Cross v. State Roads Commission of the State Highway Administration

District Court, D. Maryland · Jul 24, 2024

32 expansion is complete, and Parcel 139 has been reduced in size by 1.386 acres and has lost ingress and egress to Maryland Route 32, and thus is landlocked; in addition, the remaining 2.01-acre lot no longer qualifies … insufficient or frivolous on its face,’ and would run contrary to the Fourth Circuit’s well-established ‘policy to liberally allow amendment in keeping with the spirit of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a).””

Kemplen v. Maryland

295 F. Supp. 8 · District Court, D. Maryland · Jan 14, 1969

“May”, “if any” scarcely suggest that at least as of the date of the Whittington decision the Supreme Court itself was of the belief that Gault clearly established new procedures applicable to waiver of jurisdiction proceedings … Yet Justice Brandéis even more boldly characterized the immunity from unjustifiable intrusions upon privacy, which was denied retroactive enforcement in Linkletter, as ‘the most comprehensive of rights and the right most

Etefia v. East Baltimore Community Corp.

2 F. Supp. 2d 751 · District Court, D. Maryland · Mar 25, 1998

The Fourth Circuit case law clearly requires less than actual notice to the president of corporate officer. … In establishing the four prongs, plaintiff also rebuts defendant’s legitimate, nondis-eriminatory reasons for not promoting him: that he didn’t possess the preferred skills and he wasn’t qualified.

Lucero v. Early

District Court, D. Maryland · Sep 25, 2019

indifferent because Lucero’s rights were not clearly established. … Second, the City conflates deliberate indifference under Monell with the need for a constitutional right to be clearly established to overcome qualified immunity.

Causey v. Balog

929 F. Supp. 900 · District Court, D. Maryland · Jun 17, 1996

To establish his prima facie case for failure to promote, Causey must show that: (1) he is a member of a protected group; (2) he sought the position in question; (3) he was qualified; and (4) he was rejected under circumstances … Causey must show “actual malice” in order to overcome this qualified privilege.

G & M Oil Co. v. Glenfed Financial Corp.

782 F. Supp. 1078 · District Court, D. Maryland · Dec 21, 1989

The applicable standards for analyzing a motion for summary judgment under Rule 56 are well-established. … unable to clearly address these theories in the motion for summary judgment.

Kerby v. Mortgage Funding Corp.

992 F. Supp. 787 · District Court, D. Maryland · Jan 8, 1998

Dalm, 494 U.S. 596, 608 , 110 S.Ct. 1361, 1368 , 108 L.Ed.2d 548 (1990) (“Under settled principles of sovereign immunity, ‘the United States, as sovereign, is immune from suit, save as it consents to be sued ... and the terms … It manifestly cannot be said, however, that under the circumstances “it would have been unnecessary for Congress to amend the statute” to clearly establish the permissiveness of a recoupment defense.