Case law

United States v. State of Md.

471 F. Supp. 1030 · District Court, D. Maryland · Jun 12, 1979

Several years later the Supreme Court observed that "the line between the taxable and the immune has been drawn by an unsteady hand." United States v. … Thus, the 1974 Act also served to confirm the construction intended by the Legislature but not clearly expressed in the 1971 Act.

General Motors Corp. v. Piskor

27 Md. App. 95 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jun 25, 1975

The crime causing the detention of Piskor was clearly not shoplifting within the contemplation of the statute. … A publication may be clearly defamatory as to somebody, and yet not on its face refer to a particular person.

Clark v. Prince George's County

211 Md. App. 548 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · May 2, 2013

There was no issue of immunity in that case. … The evidence was undisputed that Washington had taken the entire day off work to be home for the furniture delivery. *578 He was clearly off-duty and, as his own testimony established, he was not required to carry his service

Pfeifer v. Lever Bros. Co.

693 F. Supp. 358 · District Court, D. Maryland · Jul 7, 1987

Moreover, even Farmer’s evaluations of Pfeifer are on the whole qualified. … business environment. *365 This case presents quite clearly the latter situation.

Attkisson v. Bridges

District Court, D. Maryland · Mar 16, 2021

Without a clearly established right to recover against a mere “procurer” of illegal interceptions, the Plaintiffs cannot establish both prongs of the test as required to overcome Rosenstein’s claim of qualified immunity … Nevertheless, even if the Plaintiffs could be said to have established the “clearly established right” prong of the qualified immunity test, they have undoubtedly failed to establish the prong which requires them to show

State v. Copes

175 Md. App. 351 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jul 5, 2007

SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY/MTCA The State of Maryland, as sovereign, has absolute immunity from suit under common law. … Rather, she argued that “the injury to Gladys [ ] occurred on July 12, 2003, the day she died”; and that, because “[c]ase law in Maryland clearly established] that the date of injury, not the date of negligence, is the date

Montgomery County Council v. Garrott

243 Md. 634 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Aug 23, 1966

meaning were not made apparent by the following requirement of the Constitution that the election be by the qualified voters of the county is clearly defined by its historical background and its commonly agreed-upon interpretation … The districts were established by the Charter in 1948.

Brown v. State

234 Md. App. 145 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Sep 27, 2017

CODIS hits from establishing probable cause. … The original House and Senate bills established the initial set of crimes that would qualify a suspect or convict for DNA collection, the people permitted to collect DNA evidence, the technical standards that each of the

Brady v. Ralph M. Parsons Co.

327 Md. 275 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jul 21, 1992

action provided by that law, and that Parsons, having assumed some of MTA’s duties, was entitled to the same “immunity.” … Clearly, the jury could have found that Brady should not have climbed onto the wall, and was negligent in doing so.

State Department of Assessment & Taxation v. North Baltimore Center, Inc.

361 Md. 612 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Nov 17, 2000

that it was a charitable organization 2 and evidence offered by the Supervisor to establish the opposite. 3 *615 Noting the prerequisites that must be met to qualify for an exemption from real property taxation — the property … That too is a hard-and-fast rule, which, had this Court intended it, could, and would, have been more clearly stated. JUDGMENT AFFIRMED, WITH COSTS. 1 .

State v. Baker

453 Md. 32 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · May 22, 2017

Id. at 508 n.24, 98 S.Ct. 824 (citing Downum, 372 U.S. 734 , 83 S.Ct. 1033 ); see also In re Mark R., 294 Md. at 262 , 449 A.2d 393 (“[T]he cases clearly establish that a deficiency in the prosecution’s evidence, whether … Rule 2—512(f)(1) ("The individuals to be impanelled as sworn jurors, including any alternates, shall be called from the qualified jurors remaining on the jury list in the order previously designated by the trial judge and

Corral v. Montgomery County

91 F. Supp. 3d 702 · District Court, D. Maryland · Mar 9, 2015

Both argued they were entitled to qualified immunity. … Smith and Bris-sett had not established that they were entitled to qualified immunity at this stage of the proceedings, and the claims against them in their individual capacities were permitted to proceed, along with the

Bickley v. University of Maryland

527 F. Supp. 174 · District Court, D. Maryland · Nov 16, 1981

The plaintiff’s 1976 charge alleged sex discrimination in the nature of differing pay rates between similarly qualified male and female assistant professors. Section 703(a), 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a). … Since this suit was not filed within three years of her awareness of the University’s decision, her termination claim is clearly time barred. See, e. g., Hall v.

The Ceylon Maru

266 F. 396 · District Court, D. Maryland · Jun 21, 1920

Ed. 962 , she was not immune from ordinary process upon a libel in rem against her. … New York City, supra, hold that the liability was incurred when the tort was committed, even although'the ship was then immune from arrest, and that but for such immunity it was enforceable against her.

MCB Woodberry Developer v. Millrace Condo.

Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Dec 16, 2021

CIVIL IMMUNITY – ANTI-SLAPP STATUTE – Bad faith under the Anti-SLAPP statute has the same meaning as under Md. … The Community Declaration established easements, covenants, and community assessments, and defined the common areas of the development.

Jenkins v. Penrow

583 F. Supp. 15 · District Court, D. Maryland · Jul 12, 1983

immunity for their actions in executing the search warrant pursuant to which they acted. … In view of this ruling, the issue of good faith immunity of the police officers need not even be reached.

Forrester v. State

224 Md. 337 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Mar 16, 1961

From the above, it should be clear that we certainly cannot say the trial judge was clearly erroneous in his finding of facts relative to this contention of the appellant. Maryland Rule 886 (a). … During the course of his trial, he had tried to establish the fact that certain people were trying to “get” him, i. e., to have him removed from office.

Doe 4 v. Montgomery County Board of Education

District Court, D. Maryland · Dec 23, 2021

Qualified Immunity The doctrine of qualified immunity protects state officials “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … As to the second prong of the qualified immunity inquiry, the Court considers whether the constitutional right Defendants Crouse and Sullivan allegedly violated was a “clearly established” right “of which a reasonable person

State v. One 1984 Toyota Truck

69 Md. App. 235 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Mar 24, 1987

statute, when a vehicle is owned by husband and wife as tenants by the entireties and the wife is adjudged to be without knowledge of any narcotics involvement by her husband while using the vehicle, is the “conveyance” immunized … The record in the matter sub judice reveals that the motor vehicle was titled: “Craig Donald Kessler Debra Lou Kessler” without any “restrictive or qualifying words.”

Fraternal Order of Police v. Montgomery County Executive

210 Md. App. 117 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Mar 4, 2013

The underlying purpose of establishing an orderly budget system with clearly delineated responsibility was the rationale behind the Court’s holding in Foster Children, where it stated: The provisions of the Budget Amendment … Clearly the Charter permits limits to budgetary discretion.