Case law

Elliott v. Board of Trustees of Montgomery County Community College

104 Md. App. 93 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Mar 6, 1995

It noted, however, that, “While an employer need not establish personnel policies or practices, where an employer chooses to establish such policies and practices and makes them known to its employees, the employment relationship … Appellee claimed for the first time on appeal that this suit was barred under the doctrine of sovereign immunity..

(2007)

92 Op. Att'y Gen. 180 · Maryland Attorney General Reports · Dec 17, 2007

The Commission has adopted regulations establishing standards for assessing program duplication in that context. … Md. 2005) (holding that Morgan State University "qualifies for [Eleventh Amendment] immunities as an arm of the State of Maryland").

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.

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.’”

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.

DeShazor v. Barb

District Court, D. Maryland · Sep 8, 2020

Qualified Immunity Finally, Defendants make the blanket assertion that they are all entitled to summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds. … Qualified immunity is a defense that shields government officials from liability “unless (1) they violated a federal statutory or constitutional right, and (2) the unlawfulness of their conduct was ‘clearly established

Lundregan v. Housing Opportunities Commission

District Court, D. Maryland · Apr 24, 2024

that the official’s conduct violated a federal right; and (2) whether such right was “clearly established” as of the time of the alleged violation. … It is also fair argument that Lundregan’s right to be free from discrimination based on her disability was at all relevant times clearly established. In Corey v.

Department of Public Safety & Correctional Services v. Shockley

142 Md. App. 312 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jan 31, 2002

The language of DCD 50-2IL, K.4. is unambiguous. 3 The words clearly establish that the agency retains the authority to require employees respond to questions that fall within the scope of “security purposes.” … On the issue of whether a statement is voluntary, [t]he ultimate test remains that which has been the only clearly established test in the Anglo American courts for two hundred years: *326 the test of voluntariness.

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).

Day v. Day

22 Md. 530 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Mar 15, 1865

In our opinion, the payment of composition money by the appellee, did not, as between him and the State, establish the- relations of contracting parties. … In applying its imperative provisions to the present case, it is obvious that no patent can issue for the land in dispute, It is proper, however, to refer to another well settled rule, which clearly leads to the same results

President of Washington & Baltimore Turnpike Road v. State

19 Md. 239 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Dec 17, 1862

This proposition is clearly *288 erroneous. … We have confined ourselves thus far to the consideration of the privileges, immunities and liabilities of the appellant under the Act of 1812.

United States v. Frankfeld

101 F. Supp. 449 · District Court, D. Maryland · Jan 25, 1952

No particular method of selection is prescribed by the statutes; but by judicial decisions it has been established that in selecting names of citizens qualified for jury service, the constitutional principles require that … Harry West, and former Commissioners, clearly shows that there has been no discrimination, either intentional or unconscious, against any class of qualified citizens.

Krell v. Braightmeyer

District Court, D. Maryland · Nov 19, 2019

Defendants assert they are entitled to qualified immunity on the deliberate indifference claim—and the related equal protection claim—because there is no clearly established law suggesting Plaintiff was suffering … For the reasons explained above and in the Court’s prior opinion, there is clearly established law demonstrating Plaintiffs claim is viable, and as such, the Court declines to modify its qualified immunity holdings with

LeJeune v. Coin Acceptors, Inc.

381 Md. 288 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · May 13, 2004

In particular, the judge found that it was likely that Coinco would be able to establish at trial that LeJeune had possession of Coinco’s “technical information” and “overall strategy” that qualified as trade secrets under … The evidence admitted at the preliminary injunction hearing, LeJeune argues, does not establish any “actual or threatened” misappropriation of a trade secret.

Graham

District Court, D. Maryland · Feb 24, 2026

| Qualified Immunity Finally, Officer Warr argues that she is entitled to qualified immunity. … was clearly established at the time.’”

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

Wachter v. McEvoy

125 Md. 399 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Feb 17, 1915

That he qualified as a member of said board on the fourth day of May, 1914, and continued as such until the 23rd day of December, 1914, when the Governor accepted his resignation and appointed his successor, who has. qualified … Repeal of a former by a' subsequent statute, by mere implication, is never favored by the courts, and it is only when they arc clearly irreconcilable and not susceptible of any such fair interpretation as will allow of their

Cherry v. Mayor & City Cncl. of Balt.

475 Md. 565 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Aug 16, 2021

“If there is any competent evidence to support the factual findings [of the trial court], those findings cannot be held to be clearly erroneous.” Della Ratta v. … In Harford County, we rejected the County’s governmental immunity defense to the Town of Bel Air’s claim.

Mallon v. Frostburg State University

District Court, D. Maryland · Sep 6, 2019

“Otherwise Qualified” Individual To establish the second element, that he was “otherwise qualified,” plaintiff must show “(1) that he could satisfy the essential eligibility requirements … In this case, plaintiff can establish that he was “otherwise qualified” to attend FSU by showing (1) that he could satisfy the immunization policy or (2) that a reasonable accommodation by FSU would enable

State v. Hawkins

326 Md. 270 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Apr 13, 1992

Lusby, 283 Md. 334, 357-358 , 390 A.2d 77 (1978) (abrogated defense of interspousal immunity for outrageous conduct); Pope v. … Boblitz, 296 Md. 242, 275 , 462 A.2d 506 (1983) (renounced the common law doctrine of spousal immunity); 5 Evans v.