Case law

Gaines v. Reutch

64 Md. 517 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Mar 9, 1886

The testator, Andrew Reutch, died May 1st, 1883, and the appellee qualified as executor of his will on the 22d of the same month. … to ten per cent., and has allowed eight joer cent., which is within the maximum amount which they may allow on the first twenty thousand dollars of an estate coming within the operation of the Act of 1884, its action was clearly

Norman v. Borison

418 Md. 630 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Apr 22, 2011

We noted the distinction that “absolute immunity extends ... … We cast no light here on the law of conditional or qualified privilege.

University Gardens Apartments Joint Venture v. Johnson

419 F. Supp. 2d 733 · District Court, D. Maryland · Mar 9, 2006

On Count 2, Defendants assert that the County possesses governmental immunity, Mr. Johnson is entitled to statutory immunity, and Plaintiffs have failed to state a claim. … On Count 3, Defendants aver that they have not waived immunity and any alleged breach of contract is beyond the statute of limitations.

(2005)

90 Op. Att'y Gen. 109 · Maryland Attorney General Reports · Aug 8, 2005

Finally, the Act also provides for "funeral establishments" — i.e. , the premises from which funeral directing or embalming is conducted — to be licensed with the proviso that an establishment must be owned and operated by … HO § 7-303 (b). 5 The same conclusion would pertain to a funeral establishment license, as one of the conditions for granting such a license is that the establishment is owned and operated by at least one individual or corporate

General Motors Corp. v. Piskor

281 Md. 627 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Dec 23, 1977

They merely replied that they wanted to establish his identity. … Hence, since no actual malice had been established, appellee could not, as a matter of law, recover such damages.

Annappareddy v. Arnold

District Court, D. Maryland · Mar 16, 2023

All other actions are entitled only to qualified immunity. Buckley v. Fitzsimmons, 509 U.S. 259, 273 (1993). … by qualified immunity.”

Shirley v. Heckman

214 Md. App. 34 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Sep 6, 2013

Shirley failed to proffer evidence that could support a finding that the appellees abused the common interest privilege, either by establishing malice or that Mr. … Shirley cannot establish that Mr. Heckman had any knowledge of falsity of those reports. . During his deposition, Mr. Heckman was questioned at length by counsel for Mr.

McGee v. State

1 Md. App. 239 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · May 8, 1967

We cannot say that the trial judge was clearly wrong in his finding that the actions of the appellant amounted to a commission of the common law offense of resisting arrest. … The final assertion that there was insufficient evidence to establish guilt because the State failed to produce the slips with the lottery notations on them is, under the circumstances, somewhat less than impressive.

State v. Galicia

479 Md. 341 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jun 27, 2022

DaSilva was to establish an implied assertion by Mr. Garcia-Gaona that Mr. … Garcia-Gaona that clearly implicated his younger brother in the murders and, less clearly, Mr. Canales-Yanez. She also hoped to elicit from Ms. DaSilva the absence of such a statement by Mr.

Sherrill v. Cunningham

District Court, D. Maryland · Nov 15, 2019

Qualified immunity protects government officials from civil liability “unless the official’s conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right.” Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 232 (2009). … To determine whether an official is covered by qualified immunity, the Court asks (1) “whether a constitutional violation occurred” and (2) “whether the right violated was clearly established.” Melgar ex rel.

Conolly v. Riley

25 Md. 402 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jul 12, 1866

, on the alleged ground of insufficiency in the allegations of the bill, and for the further reason that the oath verifying the statements of the bill, does not affirmatively appear to have been administered by a person qualified … Lewis, 7 Gill, 377 ; and, in our opinion, the rule established by these cases may be applied here.

In re KBR, Inc., Burn Pit Litigation

268 F. Supp. 3d 778 · District Court, D. Maryland · Jul 19, 2017

At all times pertinent to Plaintiffs’ claims, this Court held that the military was “clearly engaged in combat activities” in Iraq and Afghanistan. Id. at 770 . … Rather, Plaintiffs argued, the LOGCAP contracts were managed “consistent with well-established federal rules and regulations,” under which all contractual direction was required to go through established contracting channels

Maryland Attorney General Opinion 95 OAG 056

Maryland Attorney General Reports · Feb 23, 2010

No. 110-140, 121 Stat. 1492, Congress established a Smart Grid Investment Matching Grant Program. … Under the program as originally enacted, the Secretary was directed to establish a fund and implement a grant program to provide up to 20% of qualifying Smart Grid investments for public utilities. Id.

Bozarth v. Maryland State Department of Education

District Court, D. Maryland · Mar 31, 2021

The two-part test asks: (1) whether the entity qualifies for sovereign immunity, and (2) if it does, whether the legislature waived the immunity. Id. (citing Stern, 846 A.2d at 1001). … “The similarity between comparators . . . must be clearly established in order to be meaningful.” Lightner v. City of Wilmington, N.C., 545 F.3d 260, 265 (4th Cir. 2008); Swaso, 698 F. App’x at 748.

Wilson v. State

124 Md. App. 543 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jan 27, 1999

Although the trooper was qualified to administer the HGN test and, to that extent, was properly received as an expert, HGN testing may not be used to establish a specific blood alcohol level. … As we mentioned earlier, the State never propounded any questions to the trooper to establish that he was qualified to ascertain a specific blood alcohol level based on HGN testing.

Ryan v. United States

331 F. Supp. 2d 371 · District Court, D. Maryland · Aug 17, 2004

“[WJhere undisputed facts reveal that a maritime worker has a clearly inadequate temporal connection to vessels in navigation, the court may take the question from the jury by granting summary judgment or a directed verdict … For the reasons stated above, defendants Chesapeake and Noesis have not established as a matter of law that Ryan fails to marshal sufficient evidence to establish his status as a seaman under the Jones Act.

Atkinson v. Sapperstein

191 Md. 301 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jul 20, 1948

In order to establish the unconstitutionality of these sections, appellee makes numerous contentions. We will not' discuss them in the same order in which they are presented in his brief. 1. … It therefore clearly appears that Point 5, supra, is not properly before this Court and we are therefore unable to pass upon that question.

Lambert v. State

196 Md. 57 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Aug 18, 1950

Immunity from illegal search was one of the early freedoms claimed by the colonists and provisions with respect to it were inserted in the first Maryland Constitution. … The place was barricaded, and it seems to us, beyond any reasonable doubt, that the appellants were there for the purpose of running a gambling establishment and of taking bets on races, and that these bets were noted on

R.V. v. Mnuchin

District Court, D. Maryland · Jun 19, 2020

It is true that “section 1331 is not a general waiver of sovereign immunity” and “merely establishes a subject matter that is within the competence of federal courts to entertain.” Randall v. … Section 1342’s triple mandate—that the HHS Secretary “shall establish and administer” the program, “shall provide” for payment according to the statutory formula, and “shall pay” qualifying insurers—falls

Palmore v. Baltimore & Ohio Railroad

156 Md. 4 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jun 21, 1928

In support of that contention the appellant said: “So far as it deals with the claims for wages or salaries actually earned, it is clearly an unwarranted interference with the owner’s liberty of contract and right of property … And while there should be no paltering with any real assault upon the rights, privileges, and immunities guaranteed to the citizen by the constitution of this state or of the United States, on the other hand there can be