Case law

Nelson v. Collins

455 F. Supp. 727 · District Court, D. Maryland · May 17, 1978

Whether the constitutional right which the plaintiffs claim to have been infringed was clearly established at the time is important to a determination of the defendants’ knowledge. Procunier v. … Quite clearly, the constitutional principles involved in this case have not been so clearly established at the time of infringement that the defendants could be charged with knowledge that their conduct was a violation of

State v. McNay

100 Md. 622 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Mar 5, 1905

selection of jurors had ever been considered as a judicial function which could not be delegated to executive officers spe *627 dally designated for that purpose, the existence of so many statutes in the'differerit States, establishing … To ipeet these exacting requirements so clearly-stated by Mr.

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.

Cramer v. Housing Opportunities Commission

304 Md. 705 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Dec 12, 1985

Appellant, as a tenant, was clearly a person to whom the HOC owed a duty of reasonable care in the hiring of a housing inspector. … Clearly there exists a tension between competing interests.

In Re Billy W.

386 Md. 675 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · May 11, 2005

Such rights are so fundamental that they “cannot be taken away unless clearly justified,” Boswell v. … Protracted proceedings in establishing the initial plan defeat the purpose of the statute.

Grieves v. Grieves

132 Md. 300 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Feb 28, 1918

The will clearly directs that! thei rest and residue of the estate be divided into two equal parts. … This, wo think, is clearly shown by what follows in the codicil.

City of Frederick v. Quinn

35 Md. App. 626 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Apr 13, 1977

The court below followed the strict contract theory, holding that when the pension rights vested upon employment or adoption of the plan those rights were immune from prospective legislative impairment. … The widow was denied recovery It is difficult to see where the City draws sustenance from this case since the Court clearly stated that it was not argued that the prior provisions were applicable to Saxton. Id. at 693 .

Eller v. Bolton

168 Md. App. 96 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Mar 31, 2006

Equity Act of 1984, or any other subsequent legislation; and both parties and the manager of [Husband’s] retirement plan shall take whatever actions may be necessary to establish or maintain these qualifications, provided … On appeal, this Court initially determined that the circuit court’s modifications to the QDRO were clearly revisions as opposed to clarifications.

Groome v. Gwinn

43 Md. 572 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Dec 21, 1875

duly returned as elected; by reason of a notice that the election was contested; that was a case of a clerk, one of the officers expressly named in the 11th section ; but the Attorney General though not expressly named, is clearly … His prima facie title to the office was established, and his right to be installed; this right was not defeated by a mere allegation that he had not been legally elected, or by a notice of contest; as was decided in the case

State Ex Rel. Joyce v. Flanigan

111 Md. 481 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Dec 9, 1909

This was objected to, and he was then asked if his experience and knowledge of chemistry was such as to qualify him to answer the previous question, which was also objected to. … As to the third exception the ground of the ruling stated by the Court was that two such experiences as the witness gave could not qualify him as an expert. In Harris v.

Wineland v. County Commissioners of Dorchester County

892 F. Supp. 719 · District Court, D. Maryland · May 5, 1995

Additionally, the short test provisions clearly refer to “primary duty.” … Defendants have also raised a claim that they are immune from Count III because the termination resulted from the exercise of a governmental function.

McBee v. Fulton

47 Md. 403 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jan 25, 1878

In civil suits (whatever may have been the case in criminal prosecutions) for libel, it has always been held that the truth of the defamatory matter may be pleaded in justification, and if established by proof is a complete … in determining the plea of justification they would consider all the evidence in the case, and weigh the same, and if they found the preponderance thereof in favor of the truth of the alleged libel this is sufficient to establish

Nelson v. State

187 Md. App. 1 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jul 7, 2009

To that end, Article 27, § 286 established “benchmarks” for ' the imposition of enhanced penalties. Taylor, 175 Md.App. at 168 , 926 A.2d 805 . It provided, in part: (a) Prohibited conduct. … Nor may we read a meaning into the statute that is not expressly stated or clearly implied, so as to expand its meaning.

Canty v. Corcoran

District Court, D. Maryland · Dec 7, 2023

Second, under the doctrine of qualified immunity, public officials who engage in unconstitutional conduct “may nevertheless be shielded from liability for civil damages if their actions did not violate clearly established … “The burden of establishing a qualified immunity defense rests on the official asserting the defense.” Wingate v.

Bank of Westminster v. Whyte

1 Md. Ch. 536 · High Court of Chancery of Maryland · Mar 15, 1850

The general rule is too firmly established to be questioned, that no matter how absolute a conveyance may be on its face, if the intention is to take a security for a subsisting debt, or for money lent, the transaction will … the bank in the' negotiation with Suter, from which it could be fairly inferred that the object was to take security for money loaned, or to be loaned, it would fall within the general rule ; and the transfer could not be qualified

CareFirst, Inc. v. Taylor

235 F. Supp. 3d 724 · District Court, D. Maryland · Jan 9, 2017

The decision established a procedure for public comment. (I'd, Ex. C at 19-20, ECF No. 2-6.) … In general, official-capacity lawsuits constitute actions against the state and are barred by principles of sovereign immunity, but.

Ali v. State

67 Md. App. 339 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · May 7, 1986

It has failed to appreciate that: “If B asserts that A asserted x, the admissibility of x will depend upon qualifying not only A’s assertion but B’s assertion as well.” … That the State was permitted to offer a plausible alternative explanation clearly helped to keep the jury from being led astray.

State v. Blackwell

408 Md. 677 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · May 14, 2009

Accordingly, his testimony about Blackwell’s performance on the HGN test was clearly expert testimony within Md. Rule 5-702. … The State’s contention ignores the distinction between its burden to establish the reliability of the test and its burden to show that one is qualified to administer, and thus testify about, the test.

Bryant v. Better Business Bureau of Greater Maryland, Inc.

923 F. Supp. 720 · District Court, D. Maryland · Apr 4, 1996

The record clearly demonstrates that neither Kershner nor Hogan undertook any genuine analysis of the TTY device. … This omission was clearly intentional and meant to have an impact on the manner in which the ADA is applied.

Loving Helicopters v. Kaufman

13 Md. App. 418 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Nov 17, 1971

If WWDC had expressed dissatisfaction with Kaufman, Loving could have supplied any other qualified pilot to WWDC. … Here, there was evidence which, if believed, established that Loving had the right to control and direct Kaufman in the performance of his work.