Case law

Milburn v. Milburn

142 Md. App. 518 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Feb 4, 2002

In deciding that the order of the trial court clearly satisfied the second element, we concluded that in the event a litigant was entitled to immunity, the right may exist to forego trial. … In denying the proposed stipulated dismissal, the trial court was clearly concerned about the best interests of the minor children.

Goss v. Estate of Jennings

207 Md. App. 151 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Aug 31, 2012

The nature of the records may be established by a “qualified witness” who has sufficient knowledge of the record-keeping system and the creation of the contested record to establish their trustworthiness. … Given the facts before us, we cannot state with similar decisiveness that Jennings’ entry onto the exit ramp was as "clearly” unforeseeable. .

Ross v. Housing Authority

430 Md. 648 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Mar 22, 2013

Ross from establishing that link by circumstantial evidence. … Blackwell-White was qualified as a pediatrician and expert in childhood lead poisoning and she might well have been qualified to provide expert opinion testimony on the latter two links. .

Casper v. Chas. F. Smith & Son, Inc.

71 Md. App. 445 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jun 5, 1987

The City also argued that it was immune from liability by virtue of municipal immunity. The court adopted the reasoning of the defendants and granted the respective motions. … a proprietary function and thus the doctrine of municipal immunity bars appellants’ recovery.

Harrison v. Montgomery County Board of Education

295 Md. 442 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Mar 2, 1983

City of Baltimore, 286 Md. 51 , 405 A.2d 255 (1979) (declining to judicially abrogate the doctrine of governmental immunity in tort actions); Howard v. … Taxi Operators Assn., 248 Md. 690 , 237 A.2d 762 (1968) (declining to alter the common law rule governing interspousal immunity in tort actions); White v.

Farmville Insurance & Banking Co. v. Butler ex rel. Hoffman

55 Md. 233 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jan 14, 1881

The effect of this testimony is not qualified hy anything falling from these witnesses, and they are the only persons cognizant of the facts. … Thé attempt to establish a usage in contradiction of this fourth provision, is contrary to the best considered *240 authorities.

Wilson v. Detweiler

District Court, D. Maryland · Jul 28, 2021

defendants violated plaintiff’s clearly established constitutional rights, defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity. (ECF No. 31 at 25-30). … Because neither of the two required prongs to defeat a finding of qualified immunity have been established, defendants are entitled to qualified immunity on Counts 1 and 2. IV.

Burley v. State

5 Md. App. 469 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Nov 20, 1968

State, 208 Md. 210 . 1 An accomplice is a competent witness; his testimony is admissible even though he has been found guilty, confessed his guilt or testifies under a promise of immunity. See Kitt v. State, 2 Md. … As there was legally sufficient evidence to support a finding by the trial court that the witnesses were not accomplices, such finding was not clearly erroneous and as such judgment on the evidence was not clearly erroneous

Nicholson v. Jaecksch

679 F. Supp. 518 · District Court, D. Maryland · Oct 30, 1987

Because the essence of plaintiffs argument is so clearly contrary to established precedent, the Court will discuss these issues first. … The Supreme Court has held that “government officials performing discretionary functions, generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or

Tovar v. Covington

District Court, D. Maryland · Feb 18, 2021

Other actions, such as administrative duties and investigatory functions, are entitled only to qualified immunity. Buckley, 509 U.S. at 273. … Kopelmen fall within the umbrella of absolute immunity. Previous courts have held that preparation of an indictment is clearly within the ambit of absolute prosecutorial immunity.

Commissioner of Financial Regulation v. Brown, Brown, & Brown, P.C.

449 Md. 345 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Aug 19, 2016

The enumerated services that qualify a person as a “credit services business” are: “(i) Improving a consumer's credit record, history, or rating or establishing a new credit file or record; (ii) Obtaining an … Brown established that they qualified for the attorney exemption. There was substantial evidence to support the ALJ’s finding and the Commissioner’s conclusion: the attorney exemption does not apply to BB&B or Mr.

Burkett v. State

5 Md. App. 211 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Oct 7, 1968

In holding the arrest legal the Court said at page 173: “If Cornish had not stopped, and answered the questions asked him, he might have been immune from valid arrest, as was pointed out in the Blager case. [ 162 Md. 664 … Sufficiency of the Evidence to Support the Convictions for Breaking The appellants concede that the rule is well established in Maryland that in the absence of a satisfactory explanation the *218 exclusive possession of recently

Bodden v. Walsh

District Court, D. Maryland · Aug 28, 2024

“The doctrine of qualified immunity shields government officials from liability for civil damages when their conduct does not violate clearly established constitutional ....rights a reasonable officer would have … Thus, Plaintiff has failed to plead sufficient facts under the first prong of the qualified immunity test from Ashcroft, and Defendants Carpenter and Madden are thus entitled to qualified immunity. IV.

Sippio v. State

350 Md. 633 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Aug 5, 1998

Smialek was qualified to testify as an expert in the area in which he was testifying. … Smialek clearly testified that intent was not a factor in his determination of manner of death. As properly explained by Dr.

Kerr v. Enoch Pratt Free Library

54 F. Supp. 514 · District Court, D. Maryland · Mar 7, 1944

regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges or immunities … While it would doubtless be competent for the State to create and maintain a public library corporation as a feature of public education, clearly the State has not undertaken to do so in this case.

Lumpkins v. United States

187 F. Supp. 2d 535 · District Court, D. Maryland · Feb 21, 2002

ANALYSIS When subject matter jurisdiction is challenged under the FTCA, the plaintiff bears the burden of persuasion and must establish an unequivocal waiver of immunity with respect to his claim. See Williams v. … The terms of the contract do not, by themselves, establish that WMS assumed a general duty to repair or ameliorate defective conditions on the premises.

McLaughlin v. Ward

240 Md. App. 76 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jan 30, 2019

That result would obviously be in some 3 tension with “Maryland’s long-established policy against piecemeal appeals.” Waterkeeper Alliance, Inc. v. Md. … “To qualify as a collateral order, a ruling must satisfy four criteria: ‘(1) it must conclusively determine the disputed question; (2) it must resolve an important issue; (3) it must be completely separate from the merits

Poling v. Foxwell

District Court, D. Maryland · Jan 11, 2021

Defendants argue they are entitled to qualified immunity because they did not violate any of Mr. Poling’s clearly established constitutional rights. Defs.’ Mot. Mem. 13. … According to Defendants, any violation here was not based on sufficiently established law for Mr. Poling to carry his burden to rebut qualified immunity. Defs.’ Mot. Mem. 14 (citing Bryant v.

MacGill v. Blue Cross of Maryland, Inc.

77 Md. App. 613 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jan 6, 1989

Such an allegation does not suffice to generate a genuine dispute of material fact for resolution by a trier *620 of fact. 3 The long and short of this case is that the personnel policies relied upon by appellant as establishing … The record clearly indicates that the position which is the subject of count 1, the job as Director of Underwriting Systems and Operations, was posted pursuant to the company's policies; hence, this violation does not apply

Berlyn, Inc. v. Gazette Newspapers, Inc.

214 F. Supp. 2d 530 · District Court, D. Maryland · Aug 13, 2002

Clearly, Shaffer cannot qualify under the general requirements of Rule 702, which requires “knowledge, skill, experience, training or education.” … This case is clearly analogous as the plaintiff intends to establish relevant market through Shaffer, whose highest level of education is an MBA, who has minimal formal training in applied economics, and who admittedly has