Case law

Furr v. Spring Grove State Hospital

53 Md. App. 474 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jan 7, 1983

Since they further concede that we may not overturn the doctrine of sovereign immunity, Macy v. Heverin, 44 Md. App. 358 (1979), there is nothing for us to answer. … The general absolution of an individual from the "moral obligation of common decency and common humanity, to come to the aid of another human being who is in danger” Prosser, at 340, seems clearly established in Maryland,

Chevy Chase Savings & Loan, Inc. v. State

306 Md. 384 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jun 5, 1986

That notice by its terms was only to be effective upon Chevy Chase’s qualifying for federal insurance. … This conclusion is clearly required, I think, in a mutual company, by the difference between the character of a matured claim and the character of a policy reserve.

Harts v. Calvert County Sheriff

District Court, D. Maryland · Mar 5, 2024

“Qualified immunity protects officers who commit constitutional violations but who, in light of clearly established law, could reasonably believe that their actions were lawful.” Henry v. … Under the first prong, courts determine “whether a constitutional right would have been violated on the facts alleged,” and under the second prong, whether that constitutional right was clearly established.

Hartford Ins. Co. of Midwest v. American Automatic Sprinkler Systems, Inc.

23 F. Supp. 2d 623 · District Court, D. Maryland · Oct 15, 1998

Consequently, the parties’ only disagreement 'is whether the statute bestows immunity on American. … Since American pled the defense of limitations in its answer, this defense clearly has not been waived.

Potomac Electric Power Co. v. Smith

79 Md. App. 591 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jun 8, 1989

We begin our constitutional analysis by reiterating the established principle “that a person may only assert his own constitutional rights or immunities.” Clark v. … This court held that "while clearly negligent, [defendants’ conduct] was not so extraordinary or outrageous as to raise that conduct to the qualitative level necessary to establish a foundation for punitive damages.”

Puppolo v. Adventist Healthcare, Inc.

215 Md. App. 517 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Dec 19, 2013

With regard to Adventist, Puppolo failed to identify an expert, and therefore there was no expert testimony to establish the standard of care. … It is clear from the court’s discussion on the record that its decision was not “clearly against the logic and effect of facts and inferences before the court.”

Rosin v. Board of Education of Charles County

District Court, D. Maryland · Oct 5, 2021

Clearly Established Right Whether a right was “clearly established” turns on whether “the contours of the right [were] sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what [the official] is doing … Defendants’ Motion will therefore be granted as to Counts 1 and 2 on the basis of qualified immunity.

Levin v. Hewes

118 Md. 624 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Dec 16, 1912

To permit a mistake of this nature to defeat a clearly expressed purpose of the legislative body would be to set the letter above the spirit of an enactment, and to put a premium upon tampering with a measure while on its … Clearly it does not. This precise question was passed on by this Court in Little v.

Maryland Port Administration v. SS American Legend

453 F. Supp. 584 · District Court, D. Maryland · Jul 3, 1978

This testimony establishes a factual dispute as to whether U.S. Lines was negligent in not suspending operations and whether it had a duty to suspend operations. … Lines in this case is clearly sufficient (under a Rule 56 motion) to support a finding that the accident was caused by a vessel within the meaning of the Admiralty Extension Act.

Humphreys v. Walls

169 Md. 292 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Nov 5, 1935

shall be a man of integrity: when so appointed he shall qualify before the Clerk of the Circuit Court for Wicomico County by subscribing and taking oath of office in the same manner as Justices of the Peace now qualify; said … Since the Legislature had no power to establish a new court, these provisions of the act are void. Const, art. 4, sec. 1.

Lowery v. McCormick Asbestos Co.

300 Md. 28 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jun 6, 1984

This Court held that the express immunity granted by § 2304 extended to every employer. … It is the relationship which imparts the statutory immunity.... * * # * * “...

Serio v. Baltimore County

115 F. Supp. 2d 509 · District Court, D. Maryland · Jul 20, 2000

This remaining interest — whether it be called ownership, title, or simply a non-possessory right — qualifies as a property interest protected by constitutional due process 7 , thereby allowing Serio to establish the first … The language of 445B clearly states that disposition of firearms seized pursuant to the statute may be disposed of only after a finding of guilt.

Guiney v. United States

295 F. Supp. 789 · District Court, D. Maryland · Feb 4, 1969

The widow did not renounce the bequest and the trust provided for in Item Second was established. … The controlling principles are clearly stated in Pierpont: “Finally, we consider the estate’s argument that by our holding today we frustrate Pierpont’s clearly established dispositive intent.

Anderson v. Discovery Communications, LLC

814 F. Supp. 2d 562 · District Court, D. Maryland · Sep 29, 2011

Defendants argue that Anderson cannot establish a prima facie case because Anderson’s sleep disorder does not qualify her as disabled under the ADA. … However, Anderson clearly states a claim for failure to accommodate in her response brief. Doc. No. 100 at 42. Thus, the Court will frame Anderson's claim as such. .

Lee v. State

59 Md. App. 28 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · May 8, 1984

We will dispose of the appeal from the first conviction without much discussion as the evidence clearly was sufficient to convict Lee of theft. … Under this traditional approach to larceny, the rule of “possessorial immunity” was fundamental in defining the contours of larceny.

Collins v. Baucom

District Court, D. Maryland · Jul 10, 2019

Qualified Immunity The individual Medical Defendants move to dismiss the Complaint on the basis of qualified immunity. … Moreover, even if the individual Medical Defendants were entitled to assert qualified immunity, the right at issue in this case is a clearly established right.

Sawyer v. Novak

206 Md. 80 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Oct 11, 2001

He qualified this statement, however, by admitting that at a forced sale the property should bring a minimum of $36,000. Mr. … We are not persuaded that his finding was clearly wrong, or that the price was grossly inadequate.

Heritage Associates, II, L.L.C. v. Maryland, Department of Health & Mental Hygiene (In Re Heritage Associates, II, L.L.C.)

336 B.R. 255 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Maryland · Jan 12, 2006

As stated very clearly by the Court in NVR, a suit seeking to raid a state’s treasury is the quintessential suit contemplated by the Eleventh Amendment. … Such a result is prohibited by the doctrine of sovereign immunity. See NVR, 189 F.3d at 457 .

Wilcox v. Orellano

217 Md. App. 417 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jun 24, 2014

Orellano responds that the language of the preclusion provision (§ 5-119(a)) clearly covers a voluntary dismissal by stipulation. … SB 309 (2007) (first reading). 7 To interpret rules of procedure, we “use the well-established axioms of statutory construction.

B & K Rentals & Sales Co. v. Universal Leaf Tobacco Co.

324 Md. 147 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Oct 9, 1991

Stallings’ in-court testimony because each was based upon Grimes’ hearsay statements, which it determined qualified neither as admissions of a party opponent nor as part of the undifferentiated res gestae. Lt. … Despite the censure of the “res gestae ” phrase, we also acknowledge that the term came into usage at a time when the theory of hearsay was not well developed and the various exceptions not clearly defined.