Case law

Schafer v. Maryland

555 F. Supp. 2d 572 · District Court, D. Maryland · May 27, 2008

It may be assumed that plaintiff has established a prima facie case, inasmuch as: (1) he is a member of a protected group, i.e., male and white; (2) he was, indisputably, qualified for the job for which the employer was seeking … was “best qualified.”

Germain v. Gilpin

District Court, D. Maryland · Mar 29, 2021

First, the Defendants argue that they have not violated any clearly established constitutional right and are therefore entitled to qualified immunity for all of the claims. … of their conduct was ‘clearly established at the time.’”

State v. Braverman

228 Md. App. 239 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jun 1, 2016

In place of the action for ejectment, Chapter 286 established a lien-and-foreclosure remedy, similar to the remedy for mortgage foreclosures. … The circuit court was clearly erroneous in concluding that the State lacked substantial justification to defend this proceeding.

State v. Hyman

64 L.R.A. 637 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Feb 19, 1904

The power to enact and enforce them is lodged by the people with the government of the State, qualified only by such conditions as to the manner of its exercise as are necessary to secure the individual citizen from unjust … while we hold that this power of control by the Courts is one to be most cautiously exercised, we are yet of opinion there may be a case in which an ordinance passed under grants of power like those we have cited, is so clearly

Matoumba v. State

390 Md. 544 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jan 12, 2006

Rule 5-101 establishes the applicability and scope of the Rules of Evidence. The 2003 version of the Rule, effective at the time of petitioner’s hearing, provides as follows: “(a) Generally. … In Maryland, the law was the same. 1 We said in Farrow , *551 “On the question of the guilt or innocence of the defendant it clearly is hearsay and hence is inadmissible; but on the issues of probable cause and the lawfulness

Murrill v. Hough

District Court, D. Maryland · Nov 6, 2020

Qualified immunity “protects government officials from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which … right at issue was [not] clearly established at the time of” its alleged violation.

Canter v. Shoppert

District Court, D. Maryland · Mar 7, 2022

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity shields government officials “who commit constitutional violations but who, in light of clearly established law, could reasonably … Accordingly, at this time, Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity. IV.

Prince George's County v. Hartley

150 Md. App. 581 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · May 2, 2003

The reporter objected, arguing that he had a qualified privilege under the First Amendment. The federal district court found that the reporter had waived his qualified privilege. … Chandler waived his qualified reporter privilege with regard to this conversation.

Williams & Fulwood v. Director, Patuxent Institution

276 Md. 272 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Nov 7, 1975

The second “prong” of the test is clearly met here, as an adjudication of “defective delinquency” results in an indefinite sentence to the Patuxent Institution. … Viewed in this light, McNeil would clearly require that petitioners be granted their freedom.

Berry v. Safe Deposit & Trust Co.

96 Md. 45 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Dec 3, 1902

Can it be possible that a combination of all of those incidents will establish a conclusion which no one of them tends to prove ? … And it was clearly not competent as a foundation for the impeachment of the credibility of the plaintiffs’ own witness.

Am. Acad. Pediatrics v. Food & Drug Admin.

379 F. Supp. 3d 461 · District Court, D. Maryland · May 15, 2019

The Philip Morris Court observed that, while "[n]on-legislative agency statements of the type at issue...generally do not qualify as a final agency action[,]... … Thus, the issue is whether the August 2017 Guidance qualifies as a legislative rule or an interpretive rule.

Motor Vehicle Administration v. Aiken

418 Md. 11 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jan 25, 2011

The question we decide in the present case is whether, as part of that prima facie case, the MVA must establish the validity of the test by providing evidence that the test was administered by a “qualified person,” as that … Notwithstanding the clarity with which the General Assembly has spoken in subsection (f)(7)(ii) of the Statute, Respondent argues that the MVA also must establish that the test result was obtained by a “qualified person”

Brock v. Commercial Index Bureau, Inc.

642 F. Supp. 1140 · District Court, D. Maryland · Sep 8, 1986

The Secretary’s interpretive regulation, 29 C.F.R. § 779.318 , clearly sets forth the characteristics of a retail or service establishment. … An employer who asserts that he is exempt from the Act has the burden of establishing the exemption affirmatively and clearly.

Blaw-Knox Construction Equipment Co. v. Morris

88 Md. App. 655 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Oct 4, 1991

For these reasons, the trial court refused to qualify him as an expert on accident reconstruction. This decision was not “manifestly erroneous.” … Where there is no such proof available, the law permits a finding of marriage based upon reputation and cohabitation when established by satisfactory proof.

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.

Anderson v. Baker

23 Md. 531 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Nov 2, 1865

Whether their action is dependent upon the subsequent ratification of the people or not., is not clearly established; but when ratified and adopted,, or acquiesced in, their acts are unquestionably within the limits prescribed … a particular and limited operation is to be given to the words “ privileges and immunities,” not a full and comprehensive one.

(2006)

91 Op. Att'y Gen. 135 · Maryland Attorney General Reports · Jun 20, 2006

The inclusion of the phrase "in connection therewith" in the Pennsylvania statute clearly makes a connection between the qualifying conviction and current confinement a condition of DNA sampling of inmates. … It was the product of an Administration bill that was intended to create a State DNA data base similar to those established in at least 22 other states, which would allow the State to participate in a nationwide DNA data

University of Maryland Medical System Corp. v. Waldt

411 Md. 207 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Nov 10, 2009

The Court agrees the witness may qualify as an expert without actual experience. … As this Court has previously held, “[i]t is the general rule that the admissibility of expert testimony is within the sound discretion of the trial judge and will not be disturbed on appeal unless clearly erroneous.

Piselli v. 75th Street Medical

371 Md. 188 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Oct 8, 2002

Where a person clearly has a right to money or property under a statute or common law principle, and no statute specifically provides for a remedy, Article 19 guarantees a common law remedy to enforce the right. … McLean, 346 Md. 464, 484 , 697 A.2d 468, 478 (1997) (parent-child immunity); Johnson v. Maryland State Police, supra, 331 Md. at 297 , 628 A.2d at 168 (State sovereign immunity); Sanner v.

Leadroot v. Leadroot

147 Md. App. 672 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Nov 6, 2002

We agree with appellant’s assertion that, “clearly, the service time, as opposed to the amount of the contribution, is by far the most important factor in determining the value of the benefits.” … “On appeal, we must uphold the evidentiary conclusions of the trial court unless clearly erroneous.” Strauss v. Strauss, 101 Md.App. 490, 508 , 647 A.2d 818 (1994)(citing Md. Rule 8-131(c)).