Case law

Brown v. State

359 Md. 180 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jun 9, 2000

This comparison demonstrates that § 9-106 is clearly not a competency statute and that § 9-105 is clearly not a privilege statute. … In most jurisdictions the issue is qualified by the right of either the testifying spouse, the other spouse, or both, to consent to such testimony.

Matthew Bender & Co. v. Comptroller of Treasury

67 Md. App. 693 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jun 4, 1986

for the immunity of subsection (a). … Businesses immunized from taxation by the act are also protected from retroactive levies, except as already assessed. Note, 75 Harv.L.Rev. 953, 1008 (1961).

Bradshaw v. State

139 Md. App. 54 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jun 6, 2001

The prosecutor argued in response that the public policy that supports this interspousal immunity is limited to theft. It doesn’t extend further up the chain. There is no immunity for robbery. … Finally, clearly her liability is connected with that of Mr. Butler, and under those theories, as enunciated by the court, the Court will deny the motion.

Attorney Grievance Commission v. Deutsch

294 Md. 353 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Oct 5, 1982

The third attorney was given immunity as the key government witness. … He said that estimate was high in order to protect himself under his immunity agreement.

Grace Ex Rel. Grangers Mut. Ins. v. United States

76 F. Supp. 174 · District Court, D. Maryland · Mar 5, 1948

But this Statute is in my opinion clearly inapplicable to the present situation. … These cases are therefore not clearly in point in the instant case.

Bowman v. State

314 Md. 725 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Feb 10, 1989

The only relevant evidence was the “certified record” and, as we have seen, it showed one qualifying conviction and one which did not qualify on its face, but required additional evidence to establish beyond a reasonable … Only one qualifying predicate conviction was shown and there was no competent evidence to establish the second.

Colvin v. Warford

20 Md. 357 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Dec 11, 1863

But whatever effect the real principle involved in the cases cited might have, in, limiting or qualifying the rule sta-ted by Mr. … On the contrary, the instrument that was intended to effect the transfer was wholly inoperative for that purpose, and whatever effect it had in establishing an equitable claim to the property, it clearly shows the legal title

Heritage Harbour, L.L.C. v. John J. Reynolds, Inc.

143 Md. App. 698 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Apr 3, 2002

Tn support of their motions to dismiss, *710 appellees argued that appellants’ pleadings did not contain sufficient facts to establish appellants’ entitlement to relief. … We are clearly not faced with such a situation in the case at hand.

Walker v. Oswald

68 Md. 146 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Dec 16, 1887

The Court quotes with approval the construction placed by the same tribunal in 16 Wall., upon the clause “a majority of the legal voters of a township,” and adds, “this-we understand to be the established rule as to the effect … Any other rule would he productive of the greatest inconvenience, and ought not to be adopted, unless the legislative will to that effect is clearly expressed.” *156 (Decided 16th December, 1887.)

Fitzgerald v. Watkins

District Court, D. Maryland · Nov 16, 2023

Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, however, government officials are shielded from liability for monetary damages under § 1983 “so long as ‘their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … To determine whether an official is entitled to qualified immunity, courts conduct a two-prong analysis that asks whether: (1) “the official violated a statutory or constitutional right”; and (2) “the right was ‘clearly

Burton

District Court, D. Maryland · Dec 12, 2025

Qualified immunity “protects government officials ‘from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have … “To overcome qualified immunity, a plaintiff must show ‘(1) that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) that the right was “clearly established” at the time of the challenged conduct.’”

Matter of the Comptroller

Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Nov 22, 2024

Because the timing of the refund claim was not controlled by TG § 13-1104, it is not necessary to decide the sovereign immunity issue. … Venue clearly is proper in Anne Arundel County. 4 Potomac Edison’s refund claim except for tax payments made between April 1, 2007 through July 31, 2007.

Madore v. Baltimore County

34 Md. App. 340 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Dec 30, 1976

In enacting the escape clause, § 18 (b), the legislature made no attempt to define what constitutes good cause, but clearly committed that determination to the discretion of the court. … Referring to the affidavit supporting the motion the Court said: “The showing does not necessarily establish mistake, surprise or inadvertence. It does suggest neglect.

Slingluff v. Johns

87 Md. 273 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Mar 3, 1898

Generally speaking they are not suffered to defeat a clearly manifested intention * * *. … And this conclusion is reached by applying the principle so clearly and happily expressed in Rhodes v.

Shilkret v. Annapolis Emergency Hospital Ass'n

276 Md. 187 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Oct 8, 1975

First, “[i]t effectively immunized from malpractice liability any doctor who happened to be the sole practitioner *194 in his community. … As we have indicated, the various specialties have established uniform requirements for certification.

Adams, Nelson, and Timanus v. State

200 Md. 133 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · May 9, 1952

Lenoir’s statement, while it clearly shows that an abortion was performed on her, does not show that it was illegal, because she had previously consulted a Dr. … But these points were clearly waived by the stipulation. Whether the witness could make a claim of privilege in absentia, is open to question.

Fields v. Lyng

705 F. Supp. 1134 · District Court, D. Maryland · Sep 29, 1988

New York University, 666 F.2d 761, 775 (2d Cir.1981); Carty, 623 F.Supp. at 1185 , and since defendant is clearly entitled to summary judgment on other grounds, this Court will refrain from deciding whether plaintiff is handicapped … Nevertheless, in order to establish a complete record in the event of an appeal, this Court will address the question of whether, assuming that Fields is a qualified handicap, ARS failed to accommodate his handicap reasonably

Maryland Automobile Insurance Fund v. Lumbermen's Mutual Casualty Co.

148 Md. App. 690 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Dec 24, 2002

Moreover, as the plain wording of Section 20-502 indicates, MAIF is expressly prohibited from issuing policies to those who do not qualify. … It is “[a] power, privilege, or immunity secured to a person [or entity] by law.” BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY 1322 (1999).

Myers v. Town of Elkton, Maryland

District Court, D. Maryland · Feb 24, 2023

Plaintiffs assert that their right to be free from the unlawful seizure of their dog was clearly established at the time the shooting took place. (ECF No. 42 at 28). … Accordingly, Officer Devine has not established that he is entitled to qualified immunity.

Leake v. Johnson

204 Md. App. 387 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Mar 30, 2012

Appellees argue, however, that the court “erred in determining that there was a single occurrence where the evidence established two separate and distinct causes of Mr. Johnson’s injuries.” … Prince George’s County, 320 Md. 439, 452 , 578 A.2d 745 (1990), does not explicitly detail the petitioners’ argument in this regard, but we have reviewed the brief that petitioners filed, and it clearly sets forth this argument