Case law

Municipal & County Government Employees Organization v. Montgomery County Executive

210 Md. App. 163 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Mar 4, 2013

The underlying purpose of establishing an orderly budget system with clearly delineated responsibility was the rationale behind the Court’s holding in Foster Children, where it stated: The provisions of the Budget Amendment … Clearly, the Charter permits limits to budgetary discretion.

Friendship Villa-Clinton, Inc. v. Buck

512 F. Supp. 720 · District Court, D. Maryland · Mar 31, 1981

What clearly emerges from Trainor in any event is the proposition that the Eleventh Amendment forbids federal court determination of liability on the part of a state for past benefits owed by a state even when that state … In that case, the district court had ordered the establishment of certain remedial educational programs to counteract the effects of de jure segregation in Detroit public schools and had directed that part of the cost of

Sigma Delta Chi v. Speaker, Maryland House of Delegates

270 Md. 1 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Oct 11, 1973

Ed. 2d 626 (1972), the Court held that the First Amendment does not immunize news reporters from the requirement of disclosing confidential information to grand juries. … This statement is clearly inapposite here. While the removal of pen and paper might frustruate all effective communication, the prohibition against tape recorders is a mere inconvenience.

Jefferson v. United States

74 F. Supp. 209 · District Court, D. Maryland · Oct 23, 1947

o hold that it was not the intention of Congress to impose liability for personal damage to members of the ship’s company arising on the ship but not caused by the ship itself as a juridical entity, in view of the long established … It therefore clearly covers claims against the government by virtue of negligent acts of military personnel, damaging private citizens and even civilian federal employees who have not accepted benefits under the Federal Employees

Sturdivant v. Maryland Department of Health & Mental Hygiene

207 Md. App. 33 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Aug 31, 2012

In rating qualified applicants, an appointing authority “may use any appropriate selection process,” but the “unit must be able to establish the job relatedness, reliability, and validity of the selection tests that it uses … In conclusion, SPP § 7-203 clearly states that an agency can fill vacancies by recruitment or selection from an existing list of eligible candidates.

M. A. Long Co. v. State Accident Fund

156 Md. 639 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Feb 15, 1929

of the subcontractor upon the piece of work which the principal contractor has agreed to perform that forms the basis of the statutory relation between the workman and the principal contractor, and, although it does not establish … Clearly they do not, for the reason that Lappielly’s immediate employer, the Electro-Mechanical Company, was not engaged in doing-work which the Long Company had contracted or agreed to perform; but on the contrary, there

Phair v. Montgomery County Public Schools

3 F. Supp. 2d 644 · District Court, D. Maryland · Sep 25, 1997

Unfortunately, Plaintiff cannot carry her burden of establishing that she was qualified for the position. … Defendant clearly has carried its burden of establishing the legitimacy of its selection process and Plaintiff has mounted no showing of pretext. TV.

Neal-Williams v. Addison

District Court, D. Maryland · Sep 12, 2023

“Qualified immunity protects government officials from civil damages in a § 1983 action insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would … To overcome a claim of qualified immunity from a § 1983 claim, there must be a showing that (1) the government official violated a federally protected right of the plaintiff; and (2) that right was clearly established

Johnson v. State

38 Md. App. 100 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Nov 15, 1977

*107 THE COURT: I would suggest, to protect the record, you object to my attempting to qualify her. MR. RUBINSTEIN: Yes, sir. … It will be observed that an attempt to commit the offense set forth in Article 27, § 31A, supra, is a lesser offense clearly falling within the greater charge alleged in the Charging Document.

Pennsylvania Threshermen & Farmers' Mutual Casualty Insurance v. Messenger

181 Md. 295 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jan 12, 1943

It is now argued that the insured’s damages for breach of contract cannot exceed 8537, as that value was established by the sheriff’s sale. … must possess before he is entitled to express an opinion is a preliminary question which is left largely to the discretion of the trial court, and the ruling thereon will not be disturbed by the Court of Appeals unless clearly

Roe v. Doe

193 Md. App. 558 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jul 7, 2010

The distinction is also applied to the time limit for asserting claims under a statute waiving sovereign immunity. See Higginbotham v. … The Court held that the new rule, being clearly remedial, had a retrospective sweep. 362 Md. at 554 , 766 A.2d at 108-09 .

State v. Mace

5 Md. 337 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Dec 15, 1853

We are clearly of opinion it is not. … They regarded it, as it was intended, a protection to the unfortunate, and not an immunity to the criminal.

(2006)

91 Op. Att'y Gen. 174 · Maryland Attorney General Reports · Sep 8, 2006

You advise that an applicant for a nonresident dealer permit currently qualifies for the permit. … Moreover, the purchase would clearly prevent renewal of the permit upon its expiration on the following October 31.

Quesenberry v. Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission

311 Md. 417 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jan 13, 1988

Believing he qualified for those benefits, Appellant filed a claim with the Retirement Coordinator of the WSSC. … The administrative process has clearly not been completed. Indeed, except for the filing of the claim, *426 it may not have begun in any meaningful sense.

Carter v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore

164 F. Supp. 2d 509 · District Court, D. Maryland · Sep 13, 2001

As the Supreme Court has held, a state’s waiver of sovereign immunity in its own courts does not constitute a waiver of immunity from suit in federal court under the Eleventh Amendment. Kennecott Copper Corporation v. … Probable cause clearly existed at the time for the arrest of plaintiff.

Robinette v. Hunsecker

212 Md. App. 76 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · May 29, 2013

Title III, 29 U.S.C. § 1201 et seq., establishes ERISA’s administrative and enforcement provisions. … This caveat is in keeping with an earlier statement of the Court in a similar vein: “[T]here is no simple test for ascertaining whether an institution is so closely related to governmental activity as to become a tax- *112 immune

Attorney Grievance Commission v. McCloskey

306 Md. 677 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jul 11, 1986

While Respondent argues that the words ‘Qualified Attorney’ referred to the qualified attorney in the Dominican Republic, it is *683 clear to this Court that a reasonable person reading the ad would be misled into believing … By resident it is meant when he had established his home within the territory of the Republic of Mexico or had resided therein for a minimum of six months before he is entitled to file for a divorce.’ "8 CAL.

Moore

District Court, D. Maryland · Mar 27, 2026

Under the Eleventh Amendment, states generally enjoy immunity from suit unless a state waives its immunity, or the immunity is abrogated by Congress. See Board of Trustees of Univ. of Ala. v. … But Plaintiffs do not allege any of them sought to qualify as a social equity applicant.

Bancroft Information Group, Inc. v. Comptroller of Treasury

91 Md. App. 100 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Apr 6, 1992

They argue that the regulation allows the Comptroller too much discretion to decide what qualifies as a newspaper and is thus exempt from the sales tax. … any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, 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

Hawks v. Gottschall

241 Md. 147 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jan 10, 1966

not “qualified persons” within the meaning of Code (1957), Article 66)4, Section 150 (g). … His testimony is unequivocal that as of the time of the hearing his intention to stay in Maryland was clearly formed.