Case law

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

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.

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.

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.

Neal-Willams v. Montgomery County Correctional Facility

District Court, D. Maryland · Aug 26, 2022

“Qualified immunity protects government officials from civil damages in a § 1983 action insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … To overcome a claim of qualified immunity from a § 1983 claim, there must be a showing that (1) the government official violated a federally protected right of the plaintiff; and (2) the identified right was clearly established

Proctor v. Prince George's Hospital Center

32 F. Supp. 2d 820 · District Court, D. Maryland · Aug 24, 1998

To establish a violation of § 504, Mr. … They had notice of the potential risk of their decision, and clearly refused the accommodation knowingly.

Comptroller of the Treasury v. Armco Export Sales Corp.

82 Md. App. 429 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · May 1, 1990

because it buys goods from its parent company and then resells the goods to an actual overseas customer; a commission DISC earns its income by a contractual agreement with its parent company giving it a percentage of each qualifying … Art. 81, sec. 280A(c)(7), therefore, clearly expresses a legislative intent to tax income received by a DISC.

United States v. Hopps

215 F. Supp. 734 · District Court, D. Maryland · Dec 20, 1962

Van Galder, clearly an alias and equally clearly one of the Hopps corps. … In October 1957 a $200,000 trust fund was established with a Nevada bank to secure International’s American obligations.

Queen v. State

26 Md. App. 222 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · May 8, 1975

As its ultimate effort the State now argues that Queen’s appearance in court served as sufficient identification: “ . . . the identity of the individual at trial was established prior to the taking of any testimony when appellant … A witness called to the stand and qualified, after records have been put into evidence, may testify as to his conclusion therefrom. Smith v. Jones, 236 Md. 305 .

Advin Electric, Inc. v. Reliance Surety Co.

41 Cont. Cas. Fed. 76,990 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Sep 25, 1996

whether the case should be extended beyond its precise holding, i.e., whether a project not owned by the Government can be considered a “public building or public work of the United States” in the absence of a similar statute clearly … On the other hand, it is clear and well established that, where the Government is neither the owner nor a contracting party, the project is not subject to the Miller Act merely because it is financed with Federal funds.

Pettiford v. United States

587 F. Supp. 2d 709 · District Court, D. Maryland · Nov 24, 2008

Pettiford’s 2001 Conviction for Second Degree Assault Pettiford also contends that the Government failed to establish that his 2001 conviction for second degree assault qualifies as an ACCA predicate. … Furthermore, the true test copy is sufficiently reliable to establish the fact of conviction. 8 .

Mack & Cheeks v. State

244 Md. App. 546 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jan 31, 2020

As we have been laboring herein to establish, the focus should always have been on the difference between a lay opinion and an expert opinion and not on the difference between a qualified witness and an unqualified witness … Even if, as we have established at length, Ragland v.

A. S. Abell Co. v. Barnes

258 Md. 56 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jun 5, 1970

The immunity is by privilege to the published statements. … Appellant’s counsel made clear to the court that the defense was the immunity afforded appellant under New York Times and its progeny.

Maryland Attorney General Opinion 106OAG082

Maryland Attorney General Reports · May 4, 2021

Because Chapter 462 has already been enacted, we need not consider in this opinion whether it was “clearly unconstitutional” under that standard. … the community at issue but who happens to fall on the wrong side of a state or county border could be excluded from the market, while someone who lives farther away from the community, but within the same county, could qualify

Rounds v. M-NCPPC

Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jan 29, 2015

Apart from this limited waiver of immunity, the LGTCA does not waive any preexisting immunity against suit held by the local government or its employees. Hansen v. … In this case, Petitioners clearly failed to establish that the non-joined parties met the MIE exception. 25 Because Counts V–XI were dismissed without prejudice, a remand

Nichols v. Bumgarner

District Court, D. Maryland · Nov 26, 2024

Finally, Officer Bumgarner argues he is entitled to qualified immunity. Id. at 5–6. … He further states he does not believe Officer Bumgarner is entitled to qualified immunity. Id. at 1.

Nouse v. Nouse

450 F. Supp. 97 · District Court, D. Maryland · Mar 30, 1978

Assuming without deciding that all the above requirements are satisfied and that a sex-based conspiracy qualifies as an “otherwise class-based invidiously discriminatory animus” so as to meet the intent requirement of the … Clearly, provision of a criminal penalty does not necessarily preclude implication of a private cause of action for damages. [Citations omitted.]

Dobler v. Mayor of Baltimore

151 Md. 154 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jun 11, 1926

Certain general principles seem, however, to have been clearly settled by the current and weight of judicial authority. … actually taken, for consequential damages to his premises, even though in grading and leveling the street a portion of the adjoining lot in consequence of removal of its natural support falls into the highway, and the same immunity

Freeman v. Beverly

District Court, D. Maryland · May 27, 2020

But clearly Title VII does not allow suit on this basis. See Jaffer v. Nat’l Caucus & Ctr. on Black Aged, Inc., 296 F. … Holmes argues that dismissal is warranted because the Complaint does not aver that she played any role in Freeman’s non-selection, and alternatively that she enjoys qualified immunity. ECF No. 25-1 at 4–5.