Case law

Pinkett v. United States

105 F. Supp. 67 · District Court, D. Maryland · Jun 3, 1952

It is admitted that Black and Ayers, who were clearly interested parties, did not receive notice of the Cochran application and of the hearing before the examiner. … These decisions conclusively establish the rule that the Interstate Commerce Commission in passing on an application of a motor carrier for a certificate of convenience and necessity is obliged to observe the requirements

Jefferson v. United States

77 F. Supp. 706 · District Court, D. Maryland · May 7, 1948

Grose’s opinion he is not employable industrially but could do clerical work if otherwise qualified therefor. … the Veterans’ Administration established during or shortly after the First World War.

Dunn v. State

226 Md. 463 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Oct 13, 1961

and some of the members [of the staff] who were not qualified” to practice psychiatry. … Morgenstern was thoroughly cross-examined on this matter and his testimony clearly shows that each of those concerned with the record was qualified to enter in the record whatever his contribution may have been.

Maryland Attorney General Opinion 96 OAG 061

Maryland Attorney General Reports · Aug 22, 2011

With particular application to stormwater programs, in Section 313 of the federal Clean Water Act, Congress has waived sovereign immunity and accepted liability as to all reasonable stormwater program service charges assessed … Such an entity must satisfy specific requirements to qualify for each type of State tax exemption.

Armwood v. Pepersack

244 F. Supp. 469 · District Court, D. Maryland · Jul 22, 1965

privileges and immunities and the State failed to establish that such consent or waiver was free and voluntary and not the result of duress or coercion, actual or implied. 3. … Judge Bryan in his dissent stated that the evidence clearly established a consent to the search.

Maryland Metals, Inc. v. Metzner

282 Md. 31 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Feb 1, 1978

Appellees’ initial act was the formation of a Delaware corporation named “Conservit, Inc.” on December 11, 1973, which qualified to do business in Maryland on January 14, 1974. … Appellant denies that appellees ever notified it of their intention to establish a competing enterprise and challenges the chancellor’s finding to that effect as clearly erroneous.

Coley v. Secretary of the Army

689 F. Supp. 519 · District Court, D. Maryland · Oct 1, 1987

and for which he was qualified. … Unlike Dancy and Carter , this case involves a clearly articulated and established policy of reassigning handicapped persons.

Verderamo v. Mayor & City Council

4 F. Supp. 3d 722 · District Court, D. Maryland · Mar 5, 2014

thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws” of the United States. … Therefore, the BPD claims it "enjoys sovereign immunity against all tort liability,” Police Memo at 12, and as to all "State law claims in this case.” Id. at 14.

Krikstan

District Court, D. Maryland · Jul 15, 2026

Katz, 533 U.S. 194, 201 (2001) (where no constitutional violation is shown, there is no requirement for further inquiry regarding qualified immunity). … Turning first to Krikstan’s negligent supervision claim (Count Three), the Court finds that this claim is barred because the MTCA confers state personnel “with qualified immunity from negligence actions” such as this.

ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE COM'N OF MARYLAND v. Tolar

357 Md. 569 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Feb 10, 2000

Following a hearing, the hearing court, as required, filed Findings of Fact, as follows: “FINDINGS OF FACT “Based upon the testimony and exhibits 1 produced at the hearing, the Court finds the following to be established … Clearly Mrs. Hallowell was, and perhaps still is, confused as to her responsibility for attorney’s fees relating to any additional work related to the retirement plans. Mrs.

Goldberger v. Goldberger

96 Md. App. 313 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · May 28, 1993

The Court of Appeals has recently reiterated that judges are impartial participants in the legal process, whose duty to preside when qualified is as strong as their duty to refrain from presiding when not qualified. … Recusal is a discretionary matter, and the judge’s decision denying recusal should not be overturned unless clearly wrong. Surratt v.

Hignut v. State

17 Md. App. 399 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Apr 6, 1973

clearly that Mrs. … The evidence of possession was clearly sufficient.

Holzheid v. Comptroller

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.

Lewis v. Community College of Baltimore County

District Court, D. Maryland · Nov 3, 2023

CCBC qualifies for the protection of immunity. See Jenkins v. Kurtinitis, Civ. No. ELH-14-01346, 2015 WL 1285355, at *8 (D. Md. Mar. 20, 2015) (“CCBC is an arm of the State.”); Adams v. Montgomery Coll., Civ. No. … Jan. 8, 2004) 3 Some of Plaintiff’s claims have even shorter statutes of limitations, which clearly have not been met. For example, defamation has only a one-year statute of limitations. MD. CODE ANN., CTS. & JUD.

A Guy Named Moe, LLC v. Chipotle Mexican Grill of Colorado, LLC

447 Md. 425 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Apr 26, 2016

During the pendency of the suit, The League “qualified to do business.” Id. … thus, the failure to qualify can be the result of a ‘bona fide disagreement’”.

Montgomery County v. Glenmont Hills Associates Privacy World

402 Md. 250 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Nov 30, 2007

Not only is there nothing in any of the relevant Federal statutes that unambiguously imposes that limitation, but, as noted, the HUD regulations, at least since 1995 and most clearly since 1999, establish just the opposite … Glenmont clearly violated MCC § 27-12 by refusing to rent apartments to otherwise qualified tenants solely because they proposed to use Section 8 vouchers, thereby discriminating against them by reason of source of income

Mills v. Roderick

District Court, D. Maryland · Aug 5, 2024

entitled to qualified immunity; (4) Mills failed to a administrative remedies; (5) Mills has failed to state a claim; and (6) all Defendants are ve to summary judgment? … The Court also does not address Defendants’ argument that they are mye to qualified immunity. .

Frank J. Blackwell v. City Council for Seat Pleasant

94 Md. App. 393 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jan 6, 1993

Moreover, the title clearly stated that the purpose of the resolution was to repeal in its entirety the former section. Id. … In the present case, however, the electorate was clearly misled.

Gazunis v. Foster

400 Md. 541 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Aug 1, 2007

Did the lower court err in its finding that the Defendant, Board of Education of Montgomery County was entitled to the immunity provided by § 5-518(b) Cts. & Jud. Proc. … Did the [C]ircuit [C]ourt commit reversible error by permitting hearsay testimony to establish an essential element of the defamation claim? 2.

Okoye

District Court, D. Maryland · Jan 5, 2026

A facial challenge asserts “that the allegations pleaded in the complaint are insufficient to establish subject matter jurisdiction.” Id. … Feb. 13, 2024) (finding that “DHS qualifies for sovereign immunity.”). Plaintiff asserts that State Defendants are all employees of DHS and each served, at various times, as Plaintiff’s supervisor or manager.