Case law

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.

United States v. Horn

185 F. Supp. 2d 530 · District Court, D. Maryland · Jan 31, 2002

Only after a scientific expert establishes the evidentiary reliability of the scientific principles underlying the test may a qualified police officer testify about administering of the test. … First, it held that police officers are not qualified to testify about the scientific bases underlying the HGN test and are not competent to establish that the test is reliable. 976 P.2d at 32 .

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.

Jackson v. Baltimore Curriculum Project, Inc.

District Court, D. Maryland · Jan 20, 2021

Each of these claims against Richetta is a state law claim, rendering Defendants’ invocation of § 1983 case law on qualified immunity unavailing. Instead, Maryland’s common law qualified immunity applies. … This Court is not empowered to disregard such clearly established Supreme Court precedent merely because Plaintiff thinks it would be a good idea to do so.

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

Wolf v. Johnson

157 Md. 112 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Mar 21, 1929

Johnson to the note and deed of trust to be forgeries, that a decree be passed establishing the lien of the deed of trust upon the one-half interest of the husband in the property, and, in addition thereto, decree a sale … words,” cannot, we think, be properly construed as meaning that no- joint tenancy can be created where the grant to husband and wife contains qualifying words, or words of explanation clearly showing that the estate created

Jun v. State

Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jun 22, 2026

Defense counsel pressed the detective on whether the Verizon records established that the 220 IP address was assigned to Mr. … Clearly, specialized education or training was required to understand the meaning of the information in the Kik legend and logs files.

McIver v. Russell

264 F. Supp. 22 · District Court, D. Maryland · Jan 31, 1967

Defendants have argued that dismissal by a Grand Jury of a presentment for indictment does not constitute a “termination” of the criminal proceeding for purposes of establishing that element of the tort. … Plaintiff does not deny that these are necessary elements in the definition of the tort which must be established before recovery may be had under the fourth count.

Krause Marine Towing Corp. v. Ass'n of Maryland Pilots

205 Md. App. 194 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · May 31, 2012

Id. at 1002; see also Sunset Review (2009) at 6 (“Prior to 2000, ... accountability in the event of a docking incident was not clearly defined.”). … As for issue two, the Association claims that it is immune from liability under the state action doctrine.

Mta v. Mta Police

420 Md. 141 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jun 20, 2011

is [(1)] unenforceable *1104 as ultra vires and [(2)] barred by sovereign immunity." … In 1982, we rephrased a well-established rule: "[A]bsent express legislative authority, a government agency cannot enter into binding arbitration or binding collective bargaining agreements establishing wages, hours, pension

Rebe v. State's Attorney

262 Md. 350 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jun 2, 1971

Other immunized activities permitted in some regions of the State include group singing or playing of musical instruments; the exhibition of motion pictures; dancing; the operation of recreation centers, picnic grounds, swimming … Town of Winnsboro, 252 La. 605 , 211 So. 2d 665 (1967) relied on by the appellants, is clearly distinguishable on its facts.

State Department of Assessments & Taxation v. Belcher

315 Md. 111 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Feb 28, 1989

Since Belch-er’s activities were strictly personal, they do not qualify under this phrase. … As we see it, Belcher’s investment activities were clearly an endeavor within the ordinary and popularly understood meaning of that term.

Hill v. State

190 Md. 698 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · May 27, 1948

This Court in that case held that the traverser was taken in flagrante delicto and his apprehension and confiscation of the intoxicant were a proper discharge of an official duty and that no constitutional right or immunity … By the adoption of Rule 39, it is clearly stated that the appendix to appellant’s brief should contain such part of the record as appellant desires this Court to read.

Hackett v. Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp.

486 F. Supp. 1357 · District Court, D. Maryland · Apr 7, 1980

Civ.P. 3 I The Facts The record in this case establishes the following undisputed facts. … The Union clearly recognized that the Company could withhold consent. In its letter to Mr.

Prince George's County v. Fraternal Order of Police

172 Md. App. 295 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jan 4, 2007

If the eligibility list is not established until more than ninety (90) days after the vacancy, then all vacancies *301 will be filled (or the appropriate person(s) on the eligibility list will be paid acting pay) upon establishment … There is, however, an additional limited area of review which is not as clearly defined.

G & M OIL CO. v. Glenfed Financial Corp.

782 F. Supp. 1085 · District Court, D. Maryland · Jan 10, 1991

The applicable standards for analyzing a motion for summary judgment under Rule 56 are well-established. … Glenfed asserts that G & M can neither establish that Glenfed owed it a duty of care nor that Glenfed asserted any false statements.

Frankel v. Mayor of Baltimore

223 Md. 97 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jul 1, 1960

There is a filling station on the southeast corner [of the intersection of Park Heights and Rogers Avenue], and business establishments on the other two corners. … Melvin Goldman, with a splendid background of real estate knowledge and experience and whose office is some 300 feet from the Frankel property, qualified as an expert.

Attorney Grievance Commission v. Narasimhan

438 Md. 638 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · May 23, 2014

Clearly, this filing contained significant errors by both Rogers and Respondent, who worked on the filing together. … In a footnote the Majority declines to establish a “bright-line rule as to what would qualify as properly ascertaining an attorney’s ‘established competence,' as each case is fact-specific.” Maj.