Case law

Bacon v. State

322 Md. 140 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Feb 26, 1991

Id. 5 In any event, in the case before us, it is apparent from the State’s argument that it is content that a buck knife qualifies as a penknife. … In other words, the fact that the weapon is excepted by § 36(a) immunizes the person against criminality only with respect to that statute.

Feller v. Feller

District Court, D. Maryland · Mar 20, 2020

’ actions violated clearly established law. … Application of qualified immunity under federal law is therefore appropriate. See Swanson v.

Montgomery Mutual Insurance v. Chesson

206 Md. App. 569 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Aug 29, 2012

Shoemaker, HLA is inspected because it is a genetic measure that reviews immune response genes that “help turn down innate immunity following exposure .... ” When “HLA is working, ... innate immune re-signals get converted … This MSH hormone is important in the regulation of innate immune responses and therefore the deficiency results in abnormalities of the innate immune responses. 65.

Breslin v. Powell

421 Md. 266 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Aug 16, 2011

The plaintiff must present expert testimony to establish the standard of care and to prove that the defendant breached that standard. Crockett v. Crothers, 264 Md. 222, 224-25 , 285 A.2d 612 [, 614] (1972). … Breslin states baldly in his brief, "[u]se of the word liability clearly implies summaiy judgment.”

Allotey v. Baltimore County, Maryland

District Court, D. Maryland · Nov 22, 2022

Qualified Immunity “The doctrine of qualified immunity shields government officials from liability for civil damages when their conduct does not violate clearly established … “An official is not entitled to qualified immunity if he or she deprived an individual of a constitutional right and that right was clearly established at the time of the violation.”

Rose v. Baltimore County Maryland

District Court, D. Maryland · Jan 10, 2025

“One such situation is when the individual defendants are entitled to qualified immunity.” … Evans’ constitutional rights, and that those rights were not clearly established, such that the Officers are entitled to qualified immunity.

Goldstein v. Mayor of Baltimore

273 Md. 85 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Nov 13, 1974

Klein, who *88 qualified as an expert real estate appraiser, was produced as a witness for the Owners. … Certain general principles seem, however, to have been clearly settled by the current and weight of judicial authority.

St. Joseph Medical Center, Inc. v. Cardiac Surgery Associates, P.A.

392 Md. 75 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Apr 12, 2006

Cardiac Surgery maintains that the sole argument for appealability would be the collateral order doctrine, but that “the elements of the collateral order doctrine are not established.” (Cardiac Surgery’s brief at 2). … Howard County General Hospital, supra, 950 F.Supp. 141 , were also clearly in error.

Sweeney v. Savings First Mortgage, LLC

388 Md. 319 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Aug 9, 2005

The state usury law in Michigan established a hard cap on interest rates at 7%. … Sweeney claims that the intent of the statute was to grant immunity to specific parties to qualified loans from specific types of state laws.

United States v. Baltimore & O. R.

24 F. Cas. 977 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Maryland · Jul 1, 1871

These six words, “liable to pay duty or tax.” qualify the section. This tax on incomes seems to be levied alone on the income of persons, and not on the income of corporations, no matter what their character. … With This rule so clearly enunciated by this great judge, we have only to ascertain if the advance of money by the city to aid in the construction of a railroad to bring trade and commerce to its borders from the once distant

Hanna v. Young

84 Md. 179 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jun 19, 1896

But in considering and passing upon the question of the constitutionality of the law, the rule is too well established and settled to be departed from ; that it must be made to appear that the statute, before it is declared … Without extending the discussion of this question we are clearly of opinion, both upon reason and authority, that the appellee’s contention is not sustained.

Jason v. National Loan Recoveries, LLC

227 Md. App. 516 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Apr 1, 2016

Law § 12-413 met the test for qualifying as an “other specialty,” subject to a twelve-year period of limitations under CJP § 5-102(a)(6). Id. at 72. … But the evidence in the record at the time the circuit court granted National Loan’s motion to dismiss does not clearly establish the date on which National Loan was allegedly enriched.

Gables Construction v. Red Coats

Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Feb 27, 2019

evidence establishing that GCI breached the standard of care. … In some cases, the contract may clearly express an intended third party beneficiary, see Schlicht v.

Asibem Assoc., Ltd. v. Rill

264 Md. 272 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jan 19, 1972

Such an argument might have some force in cases where it is clearly shown that the portion of the property where title failed is in all respects similar to or was a part of the remainder of the tract. … Its value cannot be determined by the use of mathematics alone, and certainly was not established with the required degree of certainty by Mrs. Mann’s testimony.

Suburban Hospital, Inc. v. Kirson

362 Md. 140 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Dec 8, 2000

The law that has developed in the federal courts under Fed.R.Civ.P. 58 has established clearly that an appellate court, in order to preserve the right of appeal, may consider the separate document requirement to have been … Ill It is firmly established in Maryland law that the employer must pay compensation under the Act for the aggravation of a claimant’s medical condition due to medical malpractice in the treatment of a workplace injury.

Hulbert v. Pope

District Court, D. Maryland · Apr 22, 2021

Alternatively, the Defendants argue they are entitled to qualified immunity because the right to record is not clearly established in the Fourth Circuit or in Maryland. … However, the court concluded that the officer was entitled to qualified immunity because the student’s right had not been clearly established at the time of his arrest. Id. at 186–87.

Cruse v. Sanni

District Court, D. Maryland · Jul 22, 2024

Qualified Immunity The Correctional Defendants argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity. … “Under our precedents, officers are entitled to qualified immunity under § 1983 unless (1) they violated a federal statutory or constitutional right, and (2) the unlawfulness of their conduct was ‘clearly established at

Coles v. Levine

561 F. Supp. 146 · District Court, D. Maryland · Mar 22, 1983

the members of the Adjustment Committee enjoy absolute immunity. … Because this case was decided before Carey , the question of whether the segregation was justified despite the due process violation was *152 not clearly addressed.

Yost v. Early

87 Md. App. 364 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · May 14, 1991

Based on this testimony, the court did not abuse its discretion when it qualified Olwell as an expert in “computer leasing.” … Yost clearly had the right to cross-examine Olwell on his knowledge of the necessary accounting procedures prior to the admission of Exhibit 91.

Insurance Co. of North America v. Coffman

52 Md. App. 732 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Nov 5, 1982

INA defends on two grounds: (1) that the van was furnished by Bethlehem for Coffman’s "regular use,” and therefore it does not qualify as a "non-owned automobile”; and (2) that even if the van did qualify- as a "non-owned … It is, rather, an exclusion from coverage; and, as succinctly stated in Neuman, 271 Md. at 654 , "[insurance coverage cannot be established by waiver.” VI.