Case law

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.

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.

Kopp v. Schrader

459 Md. 494 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jun 21, 2018

In that regard, we note that it was the State that raised the sovereign immunity defense, to an action that clearly alleged a right to back pay for employment based solely on written documents and that it should have been … That is how a system of checks and balances works.2 Conditions on Budget Appropriations and the Bayne Criteria As the Majority opinion indicates, it is well-established that, pursuant to Article III, §52(

Milburn v. State

1 Md. 1 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Dec 15, 1851

Wilson, 2 Harr. and John., 345, establishes, the exception must be sealed by the court. … It is manifest from what we have said, that we are of opinion, that were it established that Milburn had been duly appointed and qualified prior to, or on the 6th of May 1845, his appointment and qualification would be legal

Piscatelli v. Smith

424 Md. 294 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jan 23, 2012

“‘An absolute privilege is distinguished from a qualified privilege in that the former provides immunity regardless of the purpose or motive of the defendant, or the reasonableness of his conduct, while the latter is conditioned … Piscatelli Did Not Establish that Respondents Abused the Fair Reporting Privilege Respondents’ reports of the supplemental discovery memorandum are fair and accurate.

Krell v. Braightmeyer

District Court, D. Maryland · Oct 3, 2019

Qualified immunity involves two prongs: (1) whether the facts shown establish a violation of a constitutional right; and (2) whether the right was clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct. Pearson v. … See id In ruling on Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, the Court held the federal rights at issue in these three claims were clearly established and Defendants were not entitled to qualified immunity. (Mem. Op.

Powell v. United States

452 F. Supp. 2d 634 · District Court, D. Maryland · Sep 15, 2006

Williams, supra, clearly assumed the case’s retroactivity insofar as the due diligence requirement is concerned. … Maybeck, 23 F.3d 888 (4th Cir.1994) for the proposition that he is "clearly entitled to be re-sentenced as a non-career offender." The case does not aid Powell’s cause.

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.

United States v. State of Md.

488 F. Supp. 347 · District Court, D. Maryland · Mar 31, 1980

McCulloch involved a stamp tax imposed by Maryland on bank notes issued by "any Bank . . . established without authority from the State." … Certainly the burden, the harassment, the unpleasantness of those taxes would be as easy to establish as the burden of the present tax.

Classen Immunotherapies, Inc. v. Biogen Idec

968 F. Supp. 2d 660 · District Court, D. Maryland · Aug 27, 2013

Clearly, Spilker did not comprehend this method to be the renunciation of statistics that Classen appears to contemplate. See ECF No. 219 at 32. … Step I (Term 3) clearly provides for comparison of “one or more chronic immune mediated disorders,” see '739 patent col. 61,11.41-43, and substeps (a) (Term 4) and (b) (Term 5) are alternative parts of the method, see '739

Community Clinic, Inc. v. Department of Health & Mental Hygiene

174 Md. App. 526 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · May 3, 2007

Instead, Community relies on *537 medical assistants who work under the direct supervision of a physician and are trained in phlebotomy, taking vital signs, and administering immunizations. “18. … Shrieves, 100 Md.App. 283 , 641 A.2d 899 (1994), clearly articulated the distinction.

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.

United States ex rel. Washington Acqueduct v. Great Falls Manufacturing Co.

21 Md. 119 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Feb 24, 1864

The mutual intention and purpose of these Acts, clearly forbids any interpretation of their several provisions leading to such results. But the proposition hero may be placed upon a broader ground. … The theory, that any right is retained to oppose or qualify the exercise of the powers and privileges granted to the United States by this Act, is supported neither by reason nor authority, and we are constrained to say,

Jackson v. State

164 Md. App. 679 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Oct 6, 2005

The Court of Appeals relied heavily on the qualifying adjectives “substantial or significant.” … The ultimate review, moreover, was clearly under the abuse of discretion standard.

Curtis v. Pracht

202 F. Supp. 2d 406 · District Court, D. Maryland · May 9, 2002

Plaintiffs bear the burden of demonstrating an unequivocal waiver of sovereign immunity, Williams v. … When a plaintiff has failed to establish a waiver of sovereign immunity, a federal court lacks jurisdiction to hear the case. Rich v. United States, 158 F.Supp.2d 619, 630 (D.Md.2001); Global Mail Ltd. v. U.S.

Newman v. State

156 Md. App. 20 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Dec 11, 2003

Appellant sought immunity for Landry from the State, but the State denied to grant immunity. Appellant argues that Landry’s testimony would rebut the State’s argument that Landry was “controlled” by appellant. … The Court also found that the evidence could qualify as newly discovered.

Moss v. Watts

District Court, D. Maryland · Jul 21, 2023

conscience,” they are entitled to qualified immunity. … The defense of qualified immunity protects state actors from prosecution for violations of federal statutory or constitutional rights that had not been “clearly established” at the time of the alleged violations.

Kruvant v. Dickerman

18 Md. App. 1 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jun 1, 1973

The measure of damages applied to a motor vehicle which has not been entirely destroyed has been clearly enunciated. In Taylor v. … Ladden was qualified to offer his opinion as to the value of the vehicle after repairs.

Hutzell v. Boyer

252 Md. 227 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jan 23, 1969

Md. 1959), a death case wherein Judge Watkins set forth in detail the procedure to be followed in establishing the present value of damages. … The establishing of earning capacity by work performed in the past has been allowed by this Court in Delph v. Ammons, 239 Md. 662 , 212 A. 2d 504 (1965) ; Ihrie v.

Smart v. Queens Anne County

District Court, D. Maryland · Sep 16, 2019

that the QACDC ban on photographs violates the First Amendment, the Court finds that Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity on all claims. … See Booker, 855 F.3d at 539; Prison Legal News, 297 F.3d at 703 (finding the ban on bulk mail unconstitutional but granting qualified immunity to prison officials because they did not violate clearly established law).