Case law

Wilkins v. State

16 Md. App. 587 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jan 11, 1973

He maintains that otherwise qualified voters who failed to register to vote constitute a definite group or class who have been unlawfully excluded from service as jurors. … We cannot say that the trial judge was clearly erron *601 eous in reaching the conclusion he did. Rule 1086.

Widgeon v. Eastern Shore Hospital Center

300 Md. 520 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Aug 21, 1984

It has long been held that where a statute establishes an individual right, imposes a corresponding duty on the government, and fails to provide an express statutory remedy, a traditional common law action will ordinarily … But they qualified the concession by insisting that, while equitable remedies were available in an appropriate case, money damages were not.

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.

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”

Board of Dental Examiners v. Lazzell

172 Md. 314 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Apr 9, 1937

By way of answer the board either flatly admitted or denied the statements of fact and legal conclusions, and, as they are clearly enough stated in the petition, it is not necessary to repeat them, except to say that the … The petitioner demurred to the answer, his first ground being the usual “bad in substance and insufficient in law,” and the second in effect that the Act of 1933 granted those licensed prior to that time immunity from any

Hazlehurst v. Mayor of Baltimore

37 Md. 199 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Dec 20, 1872

Thus the very proviso which creates the highway qualifies it by the reservation of these rights. … of this extent it was to be, and in truth is, “incomplete, qualified and limited,” as was said in Page’s case.

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.

Delavega v. Burns

District Court, D. Maryland · Mar 31, 2021

If the officer demonstrates that the conduct in question did not violate a clearly established constitutional right, then the officer has qualified immunity from liability in the civil suit. Id. … Thus, even if the common nuisance statute were interpreted as plaintiffs argue, such an interpretation was not clearly established at the time of plaintiffs’ arrests, and defendants are entitled to qualified immunity.

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)).

(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

Hutson v. Hutson

168 Md. 182 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Feb 6, 1935

“The immunities of a tenancy by the entireties can be enjoyed only by a lawfully married pair.” Mitchell v. Frederick, 166 Md. 42 , 170 A. 733, 736 . … established.

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.

Tyma v. Montgomery County

369 Md. 497 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jun 14, 2002

and retaining qualified employees and promoting employee loyalty.” … Similarly, the regulations implementing the FMLA state, “an employer must observe any employment benefit program or plan that provides greater family or medical leave rights to employees than the rights established by the

Pem Construction Co. v. Mayor of Baltimore

233 Md. 372 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jan 28, 1964

At the hearing before the Board several qualified experts appeared for the appellant. … An officer of the appellant corporation, a qualified architect, testified that it would not be feasible to build homes on the two parcels.

United States v. Ratti

365 F. Supp. 2d 649 · District Court, D. Maryland · Feb 1, 2005

Does that establish November 15, 2000 as the date of Italy’s “final action?” … Beyond the foreseeable difficulties of establishing at a hearing that the grand jurors, when they decided to indict, did not improperly use the immunized testimony or leads or evidence derived from it, for us to condone the

Rhodes v. MCIC, Inc.

210 F. Supp. 3d 778 · District Court, D. Maryland · Sep 29, 2016

Crane Co. is clearly anticipating that the course of discovery may flesh out what are now, at best, Plaintiffs’ conclu-sional allegations. … Thus, they are clearly keeping in play a claim against Defendants who could legitimately assert the federal officer defense. See Despres v.

State Ethics Commission v. Evans

382 Md. 370 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jul 30, 2004

The present case clearly is distinguishable from these cases. First, application of § 15-405(e) to Evans impairs no vested right. … Under the Majority’s view, the presumption against retroactivity successfully may be invoked whenever a statute or licensing scheme operates on past events in any way, ignoring the qualified definition and caveat of caution

(2010)

95 Op. Att'y Gen. 56 · 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.

Vick El v. Carmean

District Court, D. Maryland · Jun 30, 2021

“Qualified immunity shields police officers who commit constitutional violations from liability when, based on ‘clearly established law,’ they ‘could reasonably believe that their actions were lawful.’” … Qualified immunity analysis requires courts to conduct a two-step inquiry, asking, in either order: “(1) whether a constitutional violation occurred; and (2) whether the right was clearly established at the time of the

Lafferty v. Theiss

District Court, D. Maryland · Aug 4, 2025

Qualified immunity protects the officer from liability unless the officer violated a constitutional right, and Plaintiff’s constitutional rights were clearly established. See Harlow v. … Officer Theiss did not violate any clearly established constitutional rights, and he is therefore entitled to qualified immunity. None of Plaintiff’s remaining claims or issues fare any better.