Case law

(2007)

92 Op. Att'y Gen. 80 · Maryland Attorney General Reports · Jul 18, 2007

Before 2006 The State election law has made provision for absentee voting since 1918 2 and was most recently amended in 2006. 3 The General Assembly has directed the State Board of Elections ("SBE") to establish guidelines … It stated that "Article I, § 3 clearly indicates that the inability to vote personally applies to `absent' voters, not those who find the voting day to be inconvenient." Id. at 90-91. D.

Rozdilsky

District Court, D. Maryland · Feb 20, 2026

Rozdilsky argues that the Court should find that the immunity provision applies because the record evidence definitively establishes that his only disclosure of any trade secrets was to his attorney, and his sole purpose … Dec. 14, 2021) (finding that DISA immunity is “an affirmative defense, and entitlement to the immunity must be established by the defendant”).

Hall v. Baltimore Police Department

District Court, D. Maryland · Mar 26, 2025

“One such situation is when the individual defendants are entitled to qualified immunity.”9 Id.; see also Int’l Ground Transp., 475 F.3d at 219 (“[B]ecause municipalities are not entitled to assert a qualified immunity … established, such that the [Officer Defendants] are entitled to qualified immunity.

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

Porter v. Zuromski

195 Md. App. 361 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Oct 4, 2010

Because of Plaintiffs credit score and impending bankruptcy filing (filed in May 1999), the parties were unable to qualify for a loan jointly. … But Wimmer is clearly not a case of absence-of-fraud equals no-claim.

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.

Lustine v. State Roads Commission

221 Md. 322 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jan 20, 1960

Although it was clearly shown in the first trial of the case that the purpose of the acquisition was to construct a controlled access arterial highway and this fact was specifically noted in our opinion in the prior appeal … We have examined the testimony which the appellants claim establishes such action on the part of the Commission, namely, pp. 2, 3 and 6-10 of the record extract, and we fail to discover any arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable

Fludd v. Kirkwood

253 Md. App. 329 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Dec 16, 2021

Kirkwood had presented grounds establishing continued personal jurisdiction over Mr. … Kirkwood’s motion, qualifying it not only as a responsive pleading but also as a general appearance. See McCormick v. St.

Baltimore Permanent Building & Land Society v. Smith

54 Md. 187 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jun 30, 1880

But what is the force and effect of the qualifying words “about sixty-five acres” in this contract? Does it import that quantity was not a material part of the contract ? … In the case of a breach of a contract to convey land, a different rule was established in England at a very early day. In Flurean vs. Thornhill, 2 Wm.

MORTGAGE INV. OF WASHINGTON v. Citizens Bank and Trust Co.

29 Md. App. 591 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jan 2, 1976

See Weiner, at 126-127; Qualified Builders, at 581, n. 2. … This is also the clear import of Qualified Builders, note 2, at 581-582 of 273 Md. 3 We have one more observation.

Kelso v. Stigar

75 Md. 376 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Mar 15, 1892

of the donation, it is therefore a qualified or base fee.” … That such presumption ought to be made is clearly established by decided cases. Syester, Trustee of Cushwa vs. Brewer, et al., 27 Md., 289 ; Kip, et al. vs. Hirsh, 103 N. Y., 565 .

Ruppert v. Fish

84 Md. App. 665 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Nov 7, 1990

We find qualified merit in Cindy’s complaint but none in John’s. … Clearly, then, there was no incorporation of those provisions into the judgment.

Riley v. State

227 Md. App. 249 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Mar 30, 2016

Thus, “the judgment of the trial court will not be set aside on the evidence unless clearly erroneous.” State v. Manion, 442 Md. 419, 431 (2015) (citation omitted). … Acts that qualify as misconduct in office include: neglect or non-performance of any positive duty imposed by law; oppressive and wil[l]ful abuse of authority (to be distinguished

Crouse v. State

57 Md. 327 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Dec 16, 1881

The State, 42 Md., 83 , establishes the validity of this law, if the same has been properly voted on, and accepted by the voters of Prince George’s County, to whom it was to be submitted ; but the appellant contends, that … This ruling also was clearly right. “ Where the question arises collaterally, and not in a direct proceeding to try the title to the office, the correctness of the decision of the canvassers cannot be called in question,

Motor Vehicle Administration v. Dove

413 Md. 70 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Mar 17, 2010

Clearly, an injury that, if left untreated, could lead to a permanent loss of function or deformity is of the type that requires urgent medical care. … The person administering the test must be a "qualified medical person” or a "qualified person” as defined by §§ 10-304(a)(2) and (3) of the Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article, and the test must be administered using

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).

Murphy v. Bastiampillai

District Court, D. Maryland · Sep 25, 2025

Qualified immunity bars a Bivens action against a federal officer unless “(1) the allegations, if true, substantiate a violation of a federal statutory or constitutional right and (2) the right was ‘clearly established’ … Bastiampillai violated that was “clearly established” at the time she violated it. Hicks, 965 F.3d at 307. Plaintiff does not site any court decision confirming that actions akin to those taken by Ms.

Beahm v. Shortall

279 Md. 321 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Feb 7, 1977

Precise standards for the degree of prejudice required for reversal, have not been, and perhaps cannot be, established. In Rippon v. … in order to be qualified to testify as an expert witness.”

Lewis v. Bethlehem Steel Corp.

440 F. Supp. 949 · District Court, D. Maryland · Oct 19, 1977

In fact, it was conceded that the plaintiff was not so qualified. … This is clearly erroneous. Lewis had not even passed the Electrical Helpers Test when he applied for the Shop Electrician position.

Blackston v. Seterus, Inc. (In re Blackston)

557 B.R. 858 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Maryland · Sep 7, 2016

It provides, “If I qualify for and enter into a repayment plan, forbearance plan, and trial period plan, I agree to the establishment of an escrow account and the payment of escrow items if an escrow account never existed … Hendersen-Webb, Inc,, 81 F.Supp.2d 582, 597 (D.Md.1999) (the FCRA provides qualified immunity from state law defamation claims provided that it was not done with malice or willful intent to injure).