Case law

White v. Prince George's County

163 Md. App. 129 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jul 6, 2005

not have immunity from liability for State constitutional torts”); see also Harford County v. … Claiming that he established good cause, White attempts to distinguish Bibum .

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.

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.

Rouse-Fairwood Limited Partnership v. Supervisor of Assessments of Prince George's County

120 Md. App. 667 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Apr 7, 1998

Regarding nonresidential uses, Lockard *680 listed the commercial establishments permitted as a matter of right under M-X-C, but not under R-R zoning. … These additional uses, such as apartments, banks, dry cleaners, department stores, and other commercial establishments, clearly would affect the overall character of the subject properties.

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.

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.

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.

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.

901, LLC v. Sup'v. of Assessments

Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Apr 3, 2024

Privilege, MERRIAM-WEBSTER, https://www.merriam- webster.com/dictionary/privilege, archived at https://perma.cc/LWA3-T46H (last visited March 20, 2024) (defining “privilege” in part as “a right or immunity … Facially, a lessee of government property who meets the conditions of TP § 6-102(e) may nonetheless be exempt from property tax because a sublessee uses the property to establish a qualifying concession under TP § 7-211

Jones v. Holloway

183 Md. 40 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Mar 23, 1944

we now live,” but it did not appear whether a stable in the rear of the house was so connected with it as to pass under the will, Justice Holmes observed: “The mode of use in the testator’s lifetimes does not necessarily establish … In this case there is nothing in the codicils to qualify the meaning of “bungalow home,” as defined in the will.

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.

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.

Uhrig v. United States

592 F. Supp. 349 · District Court, D. Maryland · Jun 30, 1984

[Pet., H 29] Taxpayer’s contention (HH 1 and 4) that the IRS lacks jurisdiction to issue a summons and that Taxpayer is immune (e.g., not a person liable to pay taxes) is without merit. … Under TEFRA’s new “bright line” test, a summons issued for a criminal purpose is enforceable unless there is a “Justice Department referral”. 6 In the instant case, Special Agent Morris’ Declaration clearly establishes that

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.

Perdue, Inc. v. State Department of Assessments & Taxation

264 Md. 228 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jan 18, 1972

The testimony at the hearing in the Tax Court established that Perdue is a Maryland corporation operating principally in Wicomico County where it is engaged in the business of breeding and raising broiler chickens for sale … Surely if eggs qualify as poultry then they should also qualify as young poultry less than six months old. 3 .

Rice v. Distance

District Court, D. Maryland · Mar 3, 2021

Additionally, this Court notes that even if Rice could establish both prongs of the excessive force test, Distance would still be entitled to summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity. … actions were lawful in light of clearly established law.’”

Keller v. State

122 Md. 677 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Feb 25, 1914

"The defendant further says, that undertaking and embalming are performed frequently by the same establishment, but that the business of undertaking is a separate and distinct business from the business of embalming. … That *Page 688 an undertaker in order to be competent and qualified in the undertaking business, must have the following knowledge and be able to perform the following, being, among other things, the duties of an undertaker

Maryland Attorney General Opinion 108OAG64

Maryland Attorney General Reports · May 17, 2023

Moreover, the capacity for such devices to produce sounds that disturbed nearby residents was well-established by 1975. … Although it is beyond the scope of this opinion to survey every local jurisdiction to determine whether all of them have been granted the power to adopt noise ordinances, many clearly have that authority.

Scott v. State

7 Md. App. 505 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Aug 12, 1969

S. 752 , the search clearly exceeded Fourth Amendment limitations on searches and seizures incident to arrest. … XXIV, entitled “Of Process Upon An Indictment,” 318-319; 1 Varón, Searches, Seizures and Immunities (1961), Ch. Ill, § (a), pp. 114-115 and_ § (b), pp. 165-166.

Geiger v. State

235 Md. App. 102 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Dec 5, 2017

The problem is that of establishing criminal agency. … That finding was not clearly erroneous.