Case law

Kastendike v. Baltimore Ass'n for Retarded Children, Inc.

267 Md. 389 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Dec 14, 1972

Thus, clearly, the action of the Gaddises in establishing their nursing home did not require assent. But, does this immunity from the requirement by the prior owners insulate their successors in interest? … For example, it is clearly established that hospital records are admissible into evidence under proper circumstances as a “business” record. See Snyder v.

White v. City of Annapolis

District Court, D. Maryland · Feb 3, 2020

clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … (2) that the right infringed upon was not clearly established at the time of the alleged violation.

DEP'T. OF ASSESS. & TAX. v. Belcher

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

Since Belcher'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.

Dobson v. Mulcare

26 Md. App. 699 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jun 6, 1975

ruling is clearly erroneous or a clear abuse of discretion it will not be reversed on appeal.” … It was not, in order to establish Dr.

Reeder v. Board of Supervisors of Elections

269 Md. 261 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jun 6, 1973

The argument of the appellant that county elections are excluded from the *264 scope of Article 33 because they are “municioalities,” and the only municipality included is Baltimore City, is clearly unsound in view of the … Article 33, Sections 3-4(a) and (b)(4), as amended, provide: “(a) Qualified voters. — Only persons, constitutionally qualified to vote in the precinct or district, as the case may be, shall be registered as qualified voters

Debbas v. Nelson

389 Md. 364 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Nov 9, 2005

It asserts that Respondents failed to establish a prima facie case of agency and therefore their theory of liability must fail. … The language clearly states that the doctors practicing in the Hospital are Hospital staff. Moreover, the record indicates that at the time of the events at issue in the case at bar, Dr.

Sibley v. Lutheran Hospital of Maryland, Inc.

709 F. Supp. 657 · District Court, D. Maryland · Jan 5, 1989

Apparently, the credentials committee decided that it would not consider plaintiff’s application until it had received word that he had established a Baltimore residence. … Plaintiff clearly cannot meet his burden of proof by the questionable negative inference which he seeks to draw from this fact. 7 .

Duncan and Smith v. State

27 Md. App. 302 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jun 30, 1975

S. 261 : “In order to qualify as a ‘person aggrieved by an unlawful search and seizure’ one must have been a victim of a search or seizure, one against whom the search was directed, as distinguished from one who claims prejudice … It permits a defendant to raise a Fourth Amendment claim and to testify with respect to that claim with absolute immunity from any later use by the prosecutor at the trial upon the merits of his testimony or of his assertion

Supreme Council of American Legion of Honor v. Green

71 Md. 263 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jun 12, 1889

In the 5th section of Article 2 of the Constitution of the Supreme Council of the Legion of Honor the object of the order, so far as it affects this case, is declared to be “To establish a benefit fund, from which, on satisfactory … The decision turned on the right to designate the jaerson named as beneficiary, and the person being designated clearly, the designation of her as “wife,” when she |>assed as such, but was not so, was held not to disentitle

Kuhl v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co.

51 Md. App. 476 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Apr 13, 1982

We conclude that the admission, over objection, of the certified copies of the criminal judgments in this case, was clearly prejudicial and amounted to reversible error. II. and III. … Applying these standards, it is readily apparent to us that Prahl’s statement does not qualify for admissibility under this exception to the hearsay rule.

Rock v. Rock

86 Md. App. 598 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Apr 1, 1991

The testimony of Tamela Bynon of Bynon Associates clearly indicated that the plaintiff while showing enthusiasm, clearly was not qualified and possessed limited technical knowledge. … We cannot ascertain what, if any, value was established for the Marauder investment. If no value was established, it would appear that Ms.

Acacia Mutual Life Insurance Company v. United States

272 F. Supp. 188 · District Court, D. Maryland · Jul 26, 1967

Such ultimate facts are subject to the ‘clearly erroneous’ rule, cf. Commissioner [of Internal Revenue] v. … Since there was no competitive aspect involved in their selection, such expenditures clearly are not pri2;es or awards.

Little v. Pennsylvania R.

95 F. Supp. 631 · District Court, D. Maryland · Feb 9, 1951

Under the rules the employer was at liberty if in need of an electrician during the war not found qualified in the lower classes, to employ nonmemlbers of the Union if found qualified for the position. … There was further evidence that by the established custom of the business such a letter, if received, would have been answered and the employee probably invited to a personal conference.

Freeland v. Childress

177 F. Supp. 2d 422 · District Court, D. Maryland · Oct 22, 2001

As to his filing of criminal charges against Plaintiff Ffrench, Trooper Chil-dress asserts that he should be shielded by the doctrine of qualified immunity. The Court agrees. … Therefore, Trooper Childress is entitled to qualified immunity on this claim. B. State Law Violations Plaintiffs allege that throughout the investigation of Mr. Freeland, the search of 901 W.

Singleton v. Maryland Technology and Development Corporation

District Court, D. Maryland · Sep 8, 2022

This mechanism is also consistent with the Supreme Court’s direction that because it establishes not just a defense but a privilege from suit, sovereign immunity should be addressed at an early stage of the case. … Supp. 1171; State Gov’t § 12-104 “clearly limits the state’s waiver of immunity.”)

Achimbi

District Court, D. Maryland · Apr 30, 2026

With respect to the qualified immunity defense this Court observed that “[I]iberally construed, the complaint asserts that Owoeye walked away when Plaintiff began his pleas to release his finger from the door.” … In the absence of any evidence disputing it, and assuming that allegation is true, Owoeye was not entitled to qualified immunity. Jd. B.

State v. Gross

134 Md. App. 528 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Oct 12, 2000

If the establishment of his criminal agency had depended on the DNA PCR analysis, the State clearly *550 would not have met its burden of production required to take the case to the jury. … The leading discussion is clearly that in Armstead .

Waugh Chapel South, LLC v. United Food & Commercial Workers Union Local 27

855 F. Supp. 2d 476 · District Court, D. Maryland · Feb 28, 2012

Established in the context of anti-trust litigation, Noerr-Pennington applies equally to labor litigation. Bryant v. … Military Dep’t of Miss., 597 F.3d 678, 691-92 (5th Cir.2010). 13 When the defendants raise NoerrPennington immunity in a motion to dismiss, the burden shifts to the plaintiffs to establish that the litigation in question

Eduardo Vazquez v. Maryland Port Administration

937 F. Supp. 517 · District Court, D. Maryland · Jun 1, 1995

Plaintiff, as an Hispanic of Puerto Rican descent, is clearly a member of a protected class. … Plaintiff has thus failed to establish the essential threshold element for his claim of discriminatory failure to promote, i.e., that he was qualified for the position in question.

Jones v. Lawson

District Court, D. Maryland · Aug 18, 2023

Qualified Immunity Lastly, the Supreme Court has explained that the “doctrine of 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 a reasonable person would have known.’”