Case law

Karthaus v. Owings

2 G. & J. 430 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jun 15, 1830

Cappeav, 6 Harr. and Johns. 401, the same rule is sanctioned and established. … The decision of this Court in 6 Harr, and Johns. 134, clearly settles this question.

East Coast Conference of the Evangelical Covenant Church of America, Inc. v. Supervisor of Assessments

40 Md. App. 213 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jul 18, 1978

After determining to make a major effort to establish new churches in areas where the church was not well known, the Conference selected the Washington, D. C. Metropolitan Area as a project area. … Fourth Edition: “A certain portion of lands, *216 tithes and offerings, established by law, for the maintenance of the minister who has the cure of souls. Tomlins.

Williams v. Maryland Department of Human Resources

136 Md. App. 153 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Dec 28, 2000

According to appellant, “the evidence of record establishes at the very least a question of fact on each and every element necessary to establish a prima facie case of discrimination under Title VII.” … Specifically, he contends that there was sufficient evidence that he was more qualified than Heaton, and that the Department failed to follow its own rules and procedures in the promotion process, to establish that appellees

Benson v. Mays

245 Md. 632 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Mar 10, 1967

State University, 336 F. 2d 557 (5th Cir. 1964), where the court held in effect that since actions for medical malpractice sound in tort, such an action could not be filed for breach of contract to circumvent the sovereign immunity … While we recognize that Maryland Rule 313 authorizes joinder of tort and contract claims in any suit, we are wholly persuaded that the gravamen of the instant action so clearly sounds in tort, that its venue can only be established

Powell v. Breslin

195 Md. App. 340 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Oct 4, 2010

The undisputed facts before the circuit court established, and, indeed, appellants concede, that Dr. … This language clearly contemplates that consideration of evidence outside of the pleadings may be necessary to assess the sufficiency of a certificate.

Tall v. Board of School Commissioners

120 Md. App. 236 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Mar 4, 1998

Appellant also looks to C.J. § 5-402(b), which stated: (b) Immunity; exceptions. … He posits that the Board’s immunity under C.J. § 5-353 should be interpreted in the same way.

The Estate of Jamaal Taylor v. Baltimore County

District Court, D. Maryland · Feb 3, 2025

Second, they contend that they are entitled to qualified immunity as to the federal excessive force claim in Count I because their use of reasonable force did not violate a clearly established right.8 (ECF No. 42-1 at … The Court notes that Plaintiffs also cannot overcome the “clearly established” prong of the qualified immunity analysis.

E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co. v. Forma-Pack, Inc.

351 Md. 396 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Oct 8, 1998

The court *412 further found that “[b]eeause the memorandum would have been generated whether or not litigation was pending, it does not qualify as attorney work product.” Griffith, 161 F.R.D. at 699 . … The party seeking the protection of the privilege bears the burden of establishing its existence.

Allentown Plaza Associates v. Suburban Propane Gas Corp.

43 Md. App. 337 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Sep 10, 1979

Succinctly stated, appellants contend that section 5-108 changes established law as to when an action, involving an improvement to real property, accrues. … The section is drafted in the form of a statute of limitations, but, in reality,it grants immunity from suit in certain instances.

Brown v. State

8 Md. App. 462 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jan 14, 1970

He asks, (1) “Was not the jury clearly wrong in finding sanity beyond a reasonable doubt? … We did so to establish clearly the doctrine of merger to be applied in this jurisdiction. We think it has now been clearly established and point out that we shall be more inclined to invoke Md.

Higginbotham v. Brauer

District Court, D. Maryland · Aug 7, 2020

“Qualified immunity shields police officers who commit constitutional violations from liability when, based on ‘clearly established law,’ they ‘could reasonably believe that their actions … The qualified immunity analysis requires courts to conduct a two-step inquiry, asking, in either order: “(1) whether a constitutional violation occurred; and (2) whether the right was clearly established

State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. Maryland Automobile Insurance Fund

277 Md. 602 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · May 5, 1976

Comm’r, 219 Md. 607, 611 , 150 A. 2d 421 (1959), we conclude that the “coverage” provided in the State Farm endorsement was clearly less than the “coverage” provided in § 243H. … The approval of the State Farm endorsement by the Insurance Commissioner is hardly persuasive where, as here, the endorsement so clearly limits coverage in violation of a statute.

Myers v. Silljacks

58 Md. 319 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · May 4, 1882

that will he applied for their accomplishment, there are well defined limits to those principles, which cannot be transgressed; and in their application the Cóiirt must' ever be careful that it does not afford too great an immunity … Indeed, the present application is not even based upon a full recognition of the landlord’s title; but it is admitted only in a limited and 'qualified way, notwithstanding. the decision in the action at law.

King v. Smith

District Court, D. Maryland · Sep 9, 2024

Qualified Immunity Defendants argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity for actions taken in their individual capacities. (Defs.’ Mot. at 12). … “Under our precedents, officers are entitled to qualified immunity under § 1983 unless (1) they violated a federal statutory or constitutional right, and (2) the unlawfulness of their conduct was ‘clearly established

Fleming v. United States

200 F. Supp. 3d 603 · District Court, D. Maryland · Aug 1, 2016

To consider a statute of limitations defense at the Rule 12(b)(6) stage, “all facts necessary to the affirmative defense [must] ‘clearly appear[ ] on the face of the complaint.’ ” Id. … “To establish a continuing violation, a plaintiff must establish that the ‘ “illegal act was a fixed and continuing practice.” ’ ” Greene v. U.S.

Booth v. Prince George's County

66 F.R.D. 466 · District Court, D. Maryland · Jan 23, 1975

While public officials do possess certain qualified immunity, at this preliminary stage it would be premature to determine the degree to which the officials named here may draw the cloak of qualified immunity around themselves … In the present case there clearly has never been a Rule 23(c) certification. The named plaintiff was dismissed for lack of standing at the outset.

Dietrich v. Baltimore & Hall's Springs Railway Co.

58 Md. 347 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jul 11, 1882

They were offered by the plaintiff as evidence in chief; but as such they were clearly inadmissible. … The evidence produced to establish the negligence on the part of the defendant, establishes at the same time and as part of the plaintiff’s case, the want of reasonable care on hia own part in producing the injury complained

Roy v. Dackman

445 Md. 23 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Oct 16, 2015

Clearly, such matters are not topics of common knowledge of lay people, who would populate most likely the jury in this case. … [The social worker] is not qualified to do that, as she was not qualified as a psychiatrist, psychologist, or licensed clinical social worker. The testimony was improper and should have been stricken.

Waldt v. University of Maryland Medical System Corp.

181 Md. App. 217 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Sep 5, 2008

Under Maryland law ... he is not qualified as an expert to testify with regards to informed consent in reference to this procedure or this device. The foundation has not been properly laid. It has not been established. … Aldrich testified as well, but I don’t believe he was established as an expert in the field of informed consent.

Gladhill v. Washington County Board of Education

District Court, D. Maryland · Mar 22, 2024

conduct was clearly established at the time.’” … Courts employ a two-prong inquiry to determine whether a government official enjoys qualified immunity: “(1) whether the official violated a constitutional right; and if so (2) whether the right was ‘clearly established