Case law

State v. Milburn

9 Gill 105 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jun 15, 1850

It is, on the contrary, a necessary incident to sovereignty in every government, based upon sound policy, and creates the exception in favor of the State to those general rules that are established for the rest of the community … and whether such intention may be clearly deduced from language expressly used, or inferred, by necessary implication, from the whole tenor and character of the law?

Turner v. Bouchard

202 Md. App. 428 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Dec 2, 2011

Likewise, the circuit court’s holding that the disputed area did not qualify for the so-called “woodlands exception” was a factual determination, and shall be reviewed under the clearly erroneous standard. II. … Alternatively, Turner argues that lot 17 qualifies for the “woodlands exception,” which is recognized in Maryland and would result in a presumption that Bouchard’s use of the disputed area was permissive. A.

County Commissioners v. Monnett

164 Md. 101 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jan 18, 1933

treasurer is one created by legislative enactment, and in support of diminution of compensation for this incumbent, it is urged that the constitutional prohibition is meant to apply only to compensation of those holding offices established … The intention in that seems clearly to- be to gather within the prohibition against extra compensation all persons for whom compensations have been fixed in advance for services of any kind, and we are hardly permitted to

Podberesky v. Kirwan

764 F. Supp. 364 · District Court, D. Maryland · May 15, 1991

The causation element is also clearly satisfied in this case. … However, assuming that § 1981 covers scholarship benefits (and assuming that § 1981 extends to states) [3] , Podberesky has failed to establish that defendants have waived their Eleventh Amendment immunity.

Raney v. County Commissioners

170 Md. 183 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Feb 20, 1936

Since there is but one paper qualified to publish the notices, and as the notices are required by law to be published in a newspaper, the effect of the statute is to create a privilege, special in the sense that no one but … But when the democratic nature of that government, and the care and foresight exercised, in the formulation of that instrument, to safeguard the citizen in the enjoyment of privileges and immunities which were regarded as

Danner v. State

89 Md. 220 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Mar 16, 1899

The meaning of these provisions was clearly stated by this Court in the case of The State v. … Now, aside from the well-established rule that jurisdiction not granted by law Cannot be conferred upon a Court by consent, (Price v.

Benning

District Court, D. Maryland · Sep 4, 2026

immunity. … The FSLA thus covers “even those American workers ‘who might not qualify as [employees] under a strict application of traditional agency law principles.’” Chavez- Deremer v. Med.

Donald B. Rice Tire Co. v. Michelin Tire Corp.

483 F. Supp. 750 · District Court, D. Maryland · Jan 30, 1980

While Michelin sales personnel do not qualify as economically distinct entities with whom defendant could conspire or contract, Fuchs Sugars & Syrups, Inc. v. … Although the evidence clearly established that Michelin is a premium tire with a reputation for durability and safety, these attributes are insufficient under the functional interchangeability test that serves as a proxy

In Re Formal Inquiry Concerning Judge Diener

268 Md. 659 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jun 6, 1973

Art. 40, § 45, which gave to the Commission the power to administer oaths, to subpoena witnesses, to require the production of evidence, and to grant immunity. … Since both Judges Diener and Broccolino were in office on November 3, 1970, each for a term exceeding four years, the Commission’s jurisdiction clearly extended to each of them.

State v. Hailes

217 Md. App. 212 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · May 27, 2014

Those findings of fact were not clearly erroneous. C. … Whether the declaration might qualify under a second firmly rooted exception is immaterial.

State Bd. of Elections v. Ambridge

Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jan 28, 2025

In other words, a circuit court reviewing “content and arrangement” could ask whether the ballot material at issue was qualified, not whether it should have qualified. … Ambridge and the circuit court that the charter amendment could have been drafted better or written more clearly.

Canter v. Shoppert

District Court, D. Maryland · Mar 9, 2020

Plaintiff has also sued Defendants Barrett, Schoppert, and Zeis in their individual capacities, however; the individual Defendants will only be immune from suit if they are entitled to qualified immunity. … Government officials are generally entitled to qualified immunity “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”

State v. Baker

453 Md. 32 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · May 22, 2017

Id. at 508 n.24, 98 S.Ct. 824 (citing Downum , 372 U.S. 734 , 83 S.Ct. 1033 ); see also In re Mark R. , 294 Md. at 262 , 449 A.2d 393 ("[T]he cases clearly establish that a deficiency in the prosecution's evidence, whether … Rule 2-512(f)(1) ("The individuals to be impanelled as sworn jurors, including any alternates, shall be called from the qualified jurors remaining on the jury list in the order previously designated by the trial judge and

Jones v. Reichert Jung, Inc.

211 F. Supp. 2d 661 · District Court, D. Maryland · Jul 26, 2002

These two affidavits conclusively establish that neither Bukowski nor Bernacki is qualified to give expert testimony in this case. 3 In arguing that both Bukowski and Ber-nacki should be permitted to testify as experts in … Since both Bukowski and Bernaeki are not qualified to testify as experts in this case, defendant’s motion to preclude will be granted. 4 (b) Summary Judgment In the absence of competent expert testimony establishing that

Ransom v. Leopold

183 Md. App. 570 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Dec 30, 2008

Two exhibits, both establishing the dates on which County Executive Leopold and Chief Teare took their offices, are attached to the reply memorandum. … Under the LGTCA, local governments, except to the extent common law immunity is incorporated, have no immunity from torts of their employees unless committed with “actual malice.”

Wallace v. Patterson

District Court, D. Maryland · Mar 31, 2022

Qualified Immunity (Counts I, IV, V) The individual defendants next argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity with respect to the Wallace’s Due Process § 1983 claim (Count I) … Pursuant to the doctrine of qualified immunity, even if a public official engages in unconstitutional conduct, he “may nevertheless be shielded from liability for civil damages if [his] actions did not violate clearly established

Peterson v. State

281 Md. 309 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Nov 1, 1977

The circumstances shown by the facts set out in the affidavit before the court clearly showed, it determined, that there was a continuous violation by Washburn of the Laws. Id. at 195. In Andresen v. State, 24 Md. … See also 2 Varón, Searches, Seizures and Immunities 426-431 (2d ed. 1974); 1 Wharton’s Criminal Procedure § 161 (12th ed. 1974); 68 Am. Jur. 2d Searches and Seizures § 70 (1973); Annot., 100 A.L.R.2d 522 (1965).

Brown v. Bragunier

79 Md. 234 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Apr 5, 1894

The method of that certification is minutely and clearly defined in the Code, and in subsequent Acts of Assembly amendatory thereof. … character of the return which the law requires to be made to the Governor being thus distinctly defined by the statute, it is clear that if no such return was in fact made, the relator’s right to a commission has not been established

Brinsfield v. Howeth

107 Md. 278 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jan 8, 1908

Cutter, supra, was clearly not privileged. … Most of them may be disposed of by the application to the facts of simple and well established rules.

State, Use of Holt v. Try, Inc.

220 Md. 270 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jun 10, 1959

It is difficult to conceive of action that would more clearly demonstrate the legislative will and intention. … We are not called upon to decide, and therefore express no opinion upon, whether an illegitimate child of a deceased father could qualify under Section 4 as “any person related to the deceased by blood or marriage” who is