Case law

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 .

In Re Maddox

55 L.R.A. 298 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Nov 21, 1901

This Court, speaking through the late Chief Judge Bartol, in the course of its judgment denying the claim of the applicant, said : “ The privilege of admission to the office of an attorne}^ cannot be said to be a right or immunity … come, then, to interpret statutes which relate to subjects covered by the common law we must read them in the light which we derive from the common law, and we are not to construe them as overriding, by implication, long established

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.

Stock v. Universal Foods Corp.

817 F. Supp. 1300 · District Court, D. Maryland · Mar 31, 1993

A minority plaintiff bringing a failure to hire suit under § 1981 raises an inference of discrimination by establishing (i) that he is a minority (ii) who applied for and was qualified for a job, (iii) that he was rejected … Section 1985(3) provides in relevant part: .If two or more persons ... conspire ... for the purpose of depriving, either directly or indirectly, any person ... of the equal protection of the laws, or of equal privileges and immunities

(2008)

93 Op. Att'y Gen. 12 · Maryland Attorney General Reports · Jan 29, 2008

If properly characterized as a tax, an impact fee clearly would not be an income tax or sales and use tax. An impact fee might be characterized as a property tax or an excise tax. … applies and does not seem applicable to the current leases under consideration at Fort Meade and Aberdeen Proving Ground, as we understand them. 9 As outlined in Part II.C-D above, an exception to the ownership rule is established

Nicholson v. State of Maryland

District Court, D. Maryland · Jul 14, 2023

Moreover, these rules are clearly established, both by the Supreme Court and the Fourth Circuit. … Fourth Circuit case law does not clearly establish that Defendant’s order to Plaintiff to leave the area constituted a seizure.

Oken v. Nuth

64 F. Supp. 2d 488 · District Court, D. Maryland · Aug 30, 1999

The State responds that this issue is procedurally defaulted and, alternatively, that the decision of the Maryland Court of Appeals did not involve an unreasonable application of clearly established Federal law as determined … qualified as an expert in this case.

Oglesby v. Williams

372 Md. 360 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Dec 18, 2002

Oglesby met the constitutionally imposed residency requirements for the office of State’s Attorney and, thus, qualified to run for that office. … A domicile once established continues until a new domicile is established.

Adkins v. Peninsula Regional Medical Center

224 Md. App. 115 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jul 30, 2015

Specifically, the ADA establishes that “[n]o covered entity shall discriminate against a qualified individual on the basis of disability in regard to job application procedures, the hiring, advancement, or discharge of … App. at 583 (“Establishing that one is ‘otherwise qualified’ for a job necessarily entails a consideration of whether one would be qualified if his [disability] were accommodated by the employer.” (citing Md.

D'ANGELO v. St. Agnes Healthcare, Inc.

157 Md. App. 631 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jul 15, 2004

Plaintiffs further contended that the experts’ certificates clearly applied “to the claims against St. … But clearly in this case, we didn’t look at it as being a significant time-saving effort to start small and to add.

Allen v. Brodie

573 F. Supp. 87 · District Court, D. Maryland · Oct 20, 1983

“To have a property interest in a benefit, a person clearly must have more than an abstract need or desire for it. He must have a more than unilateral expectation of it. … He admits that he is unable to afford the City owned property, and acknowledges that he is unable to meet the criteria that the City has established to qualify for a loan.

Gravatt v. Montgomery County, Maryland

District Court, D. Maryland · Mar 3, 2023

VIL = Qualified Immunity In the alternative, the Individual Defendants seek dismissal of the § 1983 claims against them on the grounds that they are entitled to qualified … immunity.

Ashley-Cooper Sales Services, Inc. v. Brentwood Manufacturing Co.

168 F. Supp. 742 · District Court, D. Maryland · Dec 23, 1958

of citizens in the several states.’; The First Amendment, ‘Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press … Clearly a three-judge court would have no jurisdiction or authority to grant the relief prayed. Plaintiff’s motions for the convocation of a three-judge court are hereby denied.

Young v. Morgan

District Court, D. Maryland · Jun 8, 2020

Sergeant Fisher is Not Entitled to Qualified Immunity Government officials are entitled to rely upon qualified immunity when “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of … Young’s clearly established rights under the Eighth Amendment.

Langerman v. Thompson

155 F. Supp. 2d 490 · District Court, D. Maryland · Aug 17, 2001

Plaintiff establishes a prima facie case of race and sex-based discrimination. He is a white male. … He applied for the supervisory specialist position and was qualified for it as the QRB rated him highly qualified and selected him to interview for the position.

Malarkey v. State

188 Md. App. 126 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Oct 2, 2009

So the analysis of his conduct must be done in the context of his performance of his duties which means that, again, he has in a civil context what would be called qualified or discretionary immunity. … The prosecutor continued: “Qualified immunity doesn’t even apply here.

Moreno v. University of Maryland

420 F. Supp. 541 · District Court, D. Maryland · Jul 13, 1976

The claims in this case are clearly not insubstantial. See Vlandis v. Kline, supra; Hooban v. Boling, 503 F.2d 648 (6th Cir. 1974); Kelm v. Carlson, 473 F.2d 1267 (6th Cir. 1973); Jagnandan v. … That case dealt with whether Patrick Cassidy, who had “arrived in this country only recently” (id., at 652) as a temporary visitor for 3 months only, could qualify under New York law to be appointed as administrator of his

Artis v. Wolford

District Court, D. Maryland · Nov 18, 2021

The doctrine of qualified immunity shields government officials “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which … Defendants argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity as to all claims because “[t]he evidence has established that the Defendants have not violated any clearly established constitutional right of which a reasonable