Case law

Atlantic, Gulf & Pacific Co. v. State Department of Assessment & Taxation

252 Md. 173 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jan 15, 1969

In our opinion, Atlantic has successfully established all three of the essential elements. … The General Assembly could have added these words, but the plain fact is that it chose not to add such qualifying language.

Riddle v. Dickens

241 Md. 579 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Mar 7, 1966

A physician who examines a litigant so that he may later qualify as an expert witness may not testify as to the history given him. Parker v. State, 189 Md. 244 . … A short answer to the appellant’s contention is that the testimony as to' disability came in without proper objection but, in any event, it was clearly admissible. Dr.

Boone v. State

3 Md. App. 11 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jan 24, 1968

Thus we think that the testimony of Craft was competent evidence and, being clearly material, was admissible against the appellant. … The rule as established by statute in New York, Alabama and California is to like effect. In People v.

Lindsay v. Stemper

166 Md. 257 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jan 31, 1934

“Prosecute” as there used clearly means to take, order or enter an appeal, as well as to carry on an appeal which has already been taken either by the “receiver, trustee or other beneficiary.” … Without the statute no such right would exist, and the limiting clause refers to and qualifies the enabling clause which alone grants the right.

Crook Horner Co. v. Gilpin

112 Md. 1 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jan 12, 1910

On the part of the plaintiffs it is contended that they are entitled to a judgment against the defendant with a perpetual stay of execution in order to establish a liability against the surety notwithstanding the fact that … The facts of the case said the Court clearly distinguish it from the case of Hill v. Harding, supra, and from the other cases cited.

Harris v. Arlen Properties, Inc.

256 Md. 185 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Dec 22, 1969

Vol. 7) Art. 75, § 96, except Delton, which having qualified to do business in Maryland was served through its resident agent. … Finally, as to Arlen Properties, Inc., it was established that this defendant was not qualified to do business in Maryland; that it is a New York corporation and does not have an office in Maryland; that all negotiations

McGRATH-MALOTT v. Maryland

565 F. Supp. 2d 656 · District Court, D. Maryland · Jun 23, 2008

Finally, this Court granted both Maryland’s and Mades’s motions as to the state law claims in Counts IV and V on the grounds that they were immune under the Eleventh Amendment of the United States Constitution, but denied … As to the second element, termination is clearly an adverse employment action.

Glen Burnie Improvement Ass'n v. State Appeal Board

213 Md. 407 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · May 30, 1957

, illegal, capricious or unreasonable-acts; but in exercising that power care must be taken not to-interfere with the legislative prerogative, or with the exercise-of sound administrative discretion, where discretion is clearly … Its interest is not established by whatever may be the interest of its members (Windsor Hills Improvement Ass’n v.

VNA Hospice of Md. v. DEPT. OF HEALTH AND MENTAL HYGIENE

406 Md. 584 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Dec 11, 2008

Their interpretation clearly raises doubts about the constitutionality of the statute. IV. … The ALJ indicated that, if the subsection had said “services for a patient,” bereavement services to the deceased’s family would qualify.

Ademiluyi v. Pennymac Mortgage Investment Trust Holdings I, LLC

929 F. Supp. 2d 502 · District Court, D. Maryland · Mar 11, 2013

A debt collector is not immunized from liability for collection activities merely because such actions are undertaken indirectly through an agent. … Having concluded that the allegations are sufficient to establish that PennyMac Holdings qualifies as a debt purchaser, I need not address defendants’ argument that the mortgage lender license held by PennyMac Services satisfied

Brink v. DaLesio

496 F. Supp. 1350 · District Court, D. Maryland · Aug 19, 1980

membership participation nor were immune from the amendment process. … The latter practice is clearly preferable.

Tederick v. State

125 Md. App. 37 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Feb 8, 1999

State, 65 Md.App. 498, 510 , 501 A.2d 111 (1985), wherein Judge Rosalyn Bell held very clearly: *41 The Court of Appeals recently held in Walczak v. … It is § 27-101 that establishes the penalties for those violations that are misdemeanors.

Davis v. Magee

140 Md. App. 635 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Aug 29, 2001

“Court records” and “police records” are defined inclusively and exclusively: the statute explains what they are and specifies records that do not qualify. … The summary judgment cannot be upheld on grounds of immunity. 2 .

Behnke v. Geib

169 F. Supp. 647 · District Court, D. Maryland · Jan 2, 1959

While an executor is named in the will, an administrator may be just as clearly and definitely named by statute. … His present amenability to suit is clearly set out by statute, subject to the qualifications of section 112 of Article 93.

Walton v. Mariner Health of Maryland, Inc.

391 Md. 643 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Mar 14, 2006

The Financial Agreement established Patricia as a statutory agent under § 19-344(c). … If the contract is to benefit the principal only, the agent is immune from personal liability for breach of that contract. City of Baltimore v.

County Commissioners of Allegany v. McClintock

60 Md. 559 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Nov 2, 1883

This title, and the several provisions of the Act, in our opinion, clearly show the intent of the Legislature to have been, to effectually secure the vaccination of all the children in the State, as the best mode of accomplishing … If the work was. done, the county is bound to pay, provided the parent’s or guardian’s inability to pay be sufficiently established. In this case the declaration was properly sustained.

Town of La Plata v. Faison-Rosewick LLC

434 Md. 496 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Sep 25, 2013

Finally, the court explained that [the guidelines] were published too late to establish the rules of the road for this petition. … Burroughs, 56 Md.App. at 440 , 468 A.2d at 144 (citing Barnes, 236 Md. at 571 , 204 A.2d at 791 ) (“Clearly the provisions of [the Constitution] will be furthered if, by proper and reasonable means, a referendum petition

Metropolitan Regional Information Systems, Inc. v. American Home Realty Network, Inc.

948 F. Supp. 2d 538 · District Court, D. Maryland · Jun 10, 2013

As a preliminary matter, MRIS and NAR contend that they are immune from antitrust liability based on Noerr-Pennington immunity. 1. … Noerr-Pennington antitrust immunity “Those who petition government for redress are generally immune from antitrust liability.” Prof'l Real Estate Investors, Inc. v.

Martin v. Warden

District Court, D. Maryland · Mar 28, 2024

Qualified immunity is an affirmative defense to § 1983 claims that “protects government officials ‘from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or … Therefore, the Court concludes that, on the record before it, Harbaugh is not entitled to qualified immunity as a matter of law. IV.

Gross v. State

235 Md. 429 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jul 31, 1964

The Court in that case went on to state clearly the reasons that justify this exception to the general rule: “* * * the need to seize weapons and other things which might be used to assault an officer or effect an escape, … State, 229 Md. 565 ; 1 Varon, Searches, Seizures and Immunities, pp. 226-232.