Case law

Essex Insurance v. Hoffman

168 F. Supp. 2d 547 · District Court, D. Maryland · Oct 15, 2001

This brochure clearly reveals that T-Up views its products as being useful in fighting diseases, including cancer. … Defendants also attempt to establish various links between Horan Goldman and Essex that they argue are suggestive of agency.

Scott-Brown v. Cohen

220 F. Supp. 2d 504 · District Court, D. Maryland · Sep 2, 2002

(PL’s Opp’n 11-14) In addition, Plaintiff posits that Defendant was clearly on notice as to the claim, as evidenced by its request for dismissal in Defendant’s first motion to dismiss in March 2001. … In the case at hand, advanced sick leave is offered to DCAA employees on a regular basis, thereby qualifying as a benefit under Title VII.

Potts v. DiPaola

District Court, D. Maryland · Mar 2, 2022

Qualified Immunity Plaintiff’s federal constitutional claims against DiPaola and Smith are also barred by qualified immunity. … “If there exists a ‘legitimate question’ as to whether particular conduct violates a particular right then the right is not clearly established and qualified immunity applies.” Korb v.

Clark v. Carder

District Court, D. Maryland · Aug 11, 2021

Daddysman separately argues that he is entitled to qualified immunity on this claim as his alleged conduct did not violate a clearly established constitutional right. … Where such conduct, if proven, would violate clearly established law, the Court will not grant summary judgment to Sgt. Daddysman based on qualified immunity. VI.

State Tax Commission v. Baltimore National Bank

174 Md. 403 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Apr 27, 1938

that may involve modification of established precedents. … Co., 17 Wall. 322 , 84 U.S. 322 , 21 L.Ed. 597 ), although it has been judicially construed as including a state when such an intent is clearly manifested. Words and Phrases; South Carolina v.

Dunbar v. Gilpin

District Court, D. Maryland · Mar 11, 2020

Qualified Immunity The correctional officers argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity on Dunbar’s □ Eighth Amendment Claim. … The correctional officers argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity because Dunbar had. no “clearly established” right to be free of their reasonable use of force: (Mot. at 17).

Carter v. Huntington Title & Escrow, LLC

420 Md. 605 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jul 14, 2011

See also § 22-101 (“Premiums for title insurance shall be set out clearly and subject to the approval of the Commissioner [of the MIA].”). … If one starts with the statute, it says if you qualify for this reduced rate, then you get it.

Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. v. Paul

256 Md. 643 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Feb 6, 1970

She established that there were other persons in the parking lot at that time. … Appellant cites several jurisdictions which have adopted this qualified privilege.

Cornfeld v. State Board of Physicians

174 Md. App. 456 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · May 2, 2007

DeCarlo, Lyon, Hearn & Pazourek, P.A., 162 F.R.D. 94, 97 (D.Md.l995)(by extending qualified immunity to physicians participating in peer review, “Maryland legislature sought to foster effective review of medical care and … To qualify for such immunity, the peer review-must be undertaken, inter alia, "in the reasonable belief that the action was in the furtherance of quality health care[J" 42 U.S.C. § 11112 (a). 11 .

Picking v. STATE FINANCE CORPORATION

332 F. Supp. 1399 · District Court, D. Maryland · May 6, 1971

On Oct. 13, 1970, at the Hearing of said Motion and Answer to Show Cause Order, presided by Judge Maguire, it was clearly evident that the Motion to Dismiss was based on conspiracy for the benefit of State Finance Corp., … Chief Justice Warren wrote: * * * Few doctrines were more solidly established at common law than the immunity of judges from liability for damages for acts committed within their judicial jurisdiction, as this Court recognized

Agnew v. State

51 Md. App. 614 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jun 1, 1982

Agnew as a "long-established pattern of political fund-raising in the State,” Maryland State Bar Association v. … In addition, having reviewed all the testimony and analyzed the statements admitted, we find nothing clearly erroneous in the trial judge’s factual findings. Compare, Laumer v.

Cutts v. Trippe

208 Md. App. 696 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Dec 20, 2012

The Guidelines apply to the establishment or modification of child support under this provision. … The purpose of establishing the balancing test in our prior decisions was not to impose a formulaic straightjacket on trial judges, but rather to extend support to those who otherwise would not qualify under the plain language

Subaqueous Exploration & Archaeology, Ltd. v. Unidentified, Wrecked & Abandoned Vessel

577 F. Supp. 597 · District Court, D. Maryland · Dec 21, 1983

The State Has Not Waived Its Sovereign Immunity. The Court finds that the State of Maryland has not waived its sovereign immunity throughout the course of these proceedings. … Amrhein clearly can protect his interests by instituting a separate proceeding under a stock fraud theory. 6 .

Darvish v. Gohari

130 Md. App. 265 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Feb 11, 2000

Under Maryland law, to establish a prima facie case for defamation, a plaintiff must ordinarily establish that the defendant made a defamatory statement to a third person; that the defamatory statement was false; that the … Communications arising “out of the employer-employee relationship clearly enjoy a qualified privilege.” McDermott v. Hughley, 317 Md. 12, 28 , 561 A.2d 1038 (1989).

Rotwein v. Bogart

227 Md. 434 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jan 25, 1962

Pustilnik could qualify as an expert in the lumber business but not in the flooring trade. … However, the lower court’s ruling may be reversed if clearly erroneous or an abuse of judicial discretion. Turner v.

(2002)

87 Op. Att'y Gen. 17 · Maryland Attorney General Reports · Feb 27, 2002

E.D. § 16-301 (d)-(e); see also E.D. § 16- 304 (authorizing county governing bodies to appropriate funds to establish and operate community colleges). … Shortly thereafter, however, the Court of Appeals concluded that a community college is a State agency for purposes of sovereign immunity. Board of Trustees v. John K.

McReady v. Montgomery Community College

District Court, D. Maryland · Sep 30, 2020

Qualified immunity protects government officials performing discretionary functions from liability damages to the extent that “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which … Here, if the free speech rights Defendants allegedly violated were not clearly established at the time their challenged actions were taken, they are entitled to qualified immunity.

Moss v. Director Gail Watts

District Court, D. Maryland · Jul 27, 2023

Qualified Immunity The defendants assert that they are entitled to qualified immunity for their actions based on Moss’s failure to state a constitutional claim. … Qualified immunity is an affirmative defense to § 1983 claims that “protects government officials ‘from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional

Comptroller of Treasury v. Aerial Products, Inc.

210 Md. 627 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Aug 27, 1956

In early cases the Supreme Court of the United States gave a rather broad scope of immunity. This immunity has recently been narrowed. Helvering v. Mountain Producers Corp., 303 U. S. 376 , 82 L. Ed. 907 ; Graves v. … the production unit, and, therefore, that it was the intent of the parties that Aerial should acquire the property for use, which clearly demonstrates a purpose other than resale.

Taylor v. Mayor of Baltimore

130 Md. 133 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jan 11, 1917

to time, and as often as deemed proper, without incurring liability by the municipality to the abutting owner of property for the mere consequential damages that may be suffered by reason of the changed conditions, was clearly … We fully realize the importance,—the necessity—of a sewerage system for the City of Baltimore, and it should not be held responsible in any case unless it is clearly shown that the party suing is entitled to recover.