Case law

Holzheid v. Comptroller of the Treasury of Md.

240 Md. App. 371 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Mar 28, 2019

but that the remaining claims are not barred by sovereign immunity. … The State avers that because Appellants only challenge Section 16 of the Budget Reconciliation and Finance Act of 2014, and not the enactment in its entirety, they do not qualify for the exception.

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 .

Leary v. Leary

97 Md. App. 26 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jul 6, 1993

The attorney who assumes the traditional guardian ad litem role has a responsibility primarily to the court and therefore has absolute immunity for “judicial functions,” which include testifying and making reports and recommendations … guardianship duties, judicial immunity may well not attach.

Meredith v. Prince George's County

District Court, D. Maryland · Jan 10, 2022

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity is an affirmative defense to Section 1983 claims that “protects government officials from liability for civil … Officer Thomas “bear[s] the burden of showing that the violation was not clearly established[.]” Mays v.

St. Charles Associates, Ltd. v. United States

671 F. Supp. 1074 · District Court, D. Maryland · Oct 14, 1987

On July 21, 1983, DOI issued a determination that each of the seven buildings, including the College Building, qualified as a “certified historic structure.” … Such plans would then be reviewed for conformity to the “Standards for Rehabilitation” established by the regulation. 36 C.F.R. § 67.6 (c) (1981).

In Re Mark M.

365 Md. 687 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Oct 5, 2001

Maryland, too, has declared a parent’s interest in raising a child to be so fundamental that it “cannot be taken away unless clearly justified.” Boswell v. … qualified person.

Manders v. Mercantile Trust & Deposit Co.

147 Md. 448 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Feb 26, 1925

This language clearly created a “spendthrift trust.” … It is true that the case was decided before “spendthrift trusts” were established in Maryland (see Smith v.

Brodsky v. Hull

196 Md. 509 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Dec 8, 1950

Had the real estate agent written the word “about” instead of the words “more or less”, the case would fall clearly within the decision in Baltimore Permanent B. & L. Society v. … The chancellor said this established the law of the State, but he added the significant words: “There may no doubt be cases in which the deficiency, from its magnitude, would raise the presumption of fraud, imposition or

Oursler v. Tawes

178 Md. 471 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jun 12, 1940

Maryland proposed an amendment to article 15 of the Declaration of Rights of the Constitution of Maryland, authorizing the General Assembly to impose taxes on incomes, and providing for the submission of said amendment to the qualified … Abstract comparisons in the application of the many and varied provisions of the Act are urged by the appellants as establishing inequities in its practical effect.

White v. State

23 Md. App. 151 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Oct 18, 1974

The record clearly indicates that appellant made no attempt to lay a foundation for such impeachment by first asking the witness, Morris, whether he had indeed made the statement to which Stokes alluded at the time, place … Their resolution requires only brief allusion to firmly established legal principles. Three objections are made to the trial court’s instructions or refusal to instruct.

First Union Corp. v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co.

126 Md. App. 499 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · May 27, 1999

In so doing, the court found specifically that two forged incumbency certificates, which Reiners submitted in order to establish his authority to act on behalf of Philip Morris, did not qualify for coverage as either “evidence … The forged incumbency certificates in this case are clearly not commercial paper and, therefore, they do not constitute “instructions or advices.”

Davis v. State

38 Md. 15 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Apr 18, 1873

The question is, how far does the third section qualify or restrain the language of the first. … The evidence amendment Acts in Great Britain and Maryland, clearly destroy the disqualification from interest,, but still leave the parties to the record incompetent.

Kleger

District Court, D. Maryland · Jan 8, 2026

Defendant Robinson is Not Entitled to Qualified Immunity or Public Official Immunity. … Defendant Robinson correctly states that qualified immunity protects government officials from civil liability “unless the official’s conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right.” Pearson v.

Doe v. Miles Laboratories, Cutter Laboratories Div.

675 F. Supp. 1466 · District Court, D. Maryland · Dec 14, 1987

In the words of Lord Abinger: I am clearly of opinion that the defendant is entitled to our judgment.... … A plaintiff who cannot show that a product was both defective and unreasonably dan *1475 gerous has failed to establish the basis for the defendant’s liability.

Prince George's Cty. v. Concerned Citizens

485 Md. 150 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Aug 22, 2023

Concerned Citizens has not established that CB-17 discriminates arbitrarily, either by providing examples of similarly situated properties that CB-17 treats differently or by establishing that its qualifying criteria are … Summary of Legislative History To summarize, the legislative record and various drafts of the Bill clearly establish the following.

Glenn v. Gill

2 Md. 1 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jun 15, 1852

The principle is well established, that the lien which the creditors have is derived entirely through the partners. … The doctrine and the authorities on which it rests, are very clearly stated in the case of Reese and Heylin, vs. Bradford, 13 Alabama, 846.

Henthorn v. Western Maryland Railway Co.

226 Md. 499 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Oct 17, 1961

out (at p. 575) that “as a general rule grievance procedures provided by a collective bargaining agreement should be a bar to suits by individuals against the Employer based upon alleged violation of the agreement,” we clearly … The appellant, of course, contends that there was no qualified privilege as a matter of law. We do not agree. In Beeler v.

Marcas, L.L.C. v. Board of County Commissioners

977 F. Supp. 2d 487 · District Court, D. Maryland · Jul 25, 2013

The record clearly establishes the MDE inspecting St. Andrew’s Landfill as early as 1999 regarding leachate seeps flowing from the landfill to adjacent waters. See ECF No. 107 at 4. … "Preliminary, we note that, even if the doctrine of governmental immunity were to protect Riverdale from the Board’s claims based on negligence and strict liability, the doctrine of governmental immunity would have no application

Raitt v. Johns Hopkins Hospital

22 Md. App. 196 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jul 19, 1974

Corso, 265 Md. 84, 97 . 1 Thus, it is necessary that parameters be established through which the standard of care or skill may be expressed. We find these parameters clearly established in Maryland. … established.

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.”