Case law

McCray v. State

84 Md. App. 513 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Oct 31, 1990

Generally, one walking along a public sidewalk or standing in a public park cannot reasonably expect that his activity will be immune from the public eye or from observation by the police. … Clearly, the videotape of McCray was captured in a public place and in public view.

Barbee v. Hecht Co.

61 Md. App. 356 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jan 11, 1985

Code art. 101, § 66(1) (1957, 1984 Cum.Supp.), which explains how one qualifies for payments from the Fund, must be read in pari materia with Section 36, which alone provides for the amount and method of payment. … Nevertheless, the Fund persuades us that to the extent Ferretto stands for the proposition that Section 36(4a) is applicable to the Fund’s payments for pre-existing impairments, it must be overruled. 1 The Fund was established

Belleview Construction Co. v. Rugby Hall Community Ass'n

321 Md. 152 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Nov 30, 1990

The covenants were clearly established as part of a general plan of development for this community. … and reimposed in 1982, the qualifying clause was removed.

Brayshaw v. Ridout

79 Md. 454 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jun 21, 1894

have been entered on the books of the parish one month at least preceding the day of election as a member of the Protestant Episcopal Church” shall have a right of suffrage in the election of vestrymen, and all persons so qualified … It designates clearly enough the parish intended to be described as Saint Margaret’s.

Pan American Sulphur Co. v. State Department of Assessments & Taxation

251 Md. 620 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jan 3, 1969

The language is clear and unambiguous and expresses clearly the legislative intent that the establishment of "use" is the sole element to be established in order to obtain the tax exemption. … Ordinance 140, which, as indicated, preceded the passage of Ordinance 1340, clearly and without ambiguity established two criteria, i.e., (1) ownership by the manufacturer in Baltimore City and (2) use in the manufacturing

McDowell v. Goldsmith

6 Md. 319 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Dec 15, 1854

Brooke, 4 Gill, 213 , the assignor of a chose in action was called by the defendant in an action by the assignees, to show that he had made the assignment for the purpose of qualifying himself as a witness to establish the … If this was really so the fraud is established.

Anderson v. United States

427 Md. 99 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jun 22, 2012

The language of the statute of repose, § 5-108, indicated clearly that the Legislature intended to tie the accrual of the cause of action to the date of completion of a particular property improvement because traditional … The Briefing Paper provided to the General Assembly describing the impact of this Court’s decision in Hill indicated clearly that the statute, which triggered the limitations period based on injury, could allow potentially

Perkins

District Court, D. Maryland · Jul 31, 2026

In considering this question, the Maryland courts have identified a two-part test: “(1) whether the entity asserting immunity qualifies for the protection; and, if so, (2) whether the legislature has waived immunity either … She alleges no facts to support that she qualified for an FMLA benefit and merely asserts in conclusory fashion that Defendant interfered with the provision of an FMLA benefit. See id.

Myerberg v. Hall

162 Md. 578 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · May 20, 1932

Tabeling el ail. against said building association, and have duly qualified; that one H. … At any rate, it is manifestly an incomplete paper, and clearly not in shape for delivery. It is not likely that the building association would have taken it in that shape. It would at least have had it acknowledged.

Cole v. State

83 Md. App. 279 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jun 4, 1990

With the key issue before the jury clearly being a credibility battle between Amy and the appellant, the appellant sought to erode Amy’s credibility by calling the social worker, Charles Bosley, as a defense witness. … Should any of these corroborative indicia of the crime be not established, it would commonly be a just basis for the contention that the woman consented.

Monumental Motor Tours, Inc. v. United States

110 F. Supp. 929 · District Court, D. Maryland · Mar 9, 1953

again filed a petition for reconsideration and for further hearing on several grounds-, raising for the first time the contention that the whole proceeding was invalid because the examiner who conducted the hearing was not qualified … Clearly it would be improper for this court to reverse the Commission’s order and delay the installation of a useful' public service by remanding the case for further proceedings on the ground that the Commission had abused

Mills v. Farris

District Court, D. Maryland · Sep 7, 2023

Defendants also assert defenses of absolute quasi-judicial and prosecutorial immunity and qualified immunity from claims asserted against them in their personal capacity. I. … Eleventh Amendment Immunity Mills’s claims against Defendants in their official capacities are barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity.

Newkirk v. State

134 Md. 310 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Apr 8, 1919

anything, established only the absence of testimony to convict. … Was- Doctor Branham qualified to make the experiments- ? In Chaleaugay *318 Ore & Iron Company v. Blake, 144 U.

Connors v. Government Employees Insurance

442 Md. 466 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Apr 17, 2015

The Connors contend that the two commas “convert the statement into the qualifying clause.” … We recognized that qualifying clauses are ordinarily “confined to the immediately preceding words or phrase—particularly in the absence of a comma before the qualifying clause.” Id. (quotations omitted).

Havilah Real Property Services, LLC v. Early

216 Md. App. 613 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Mar 27, 2014

I think the – he has to do that to overcome the qualifying privilege . . . . … We thus reversed the imposition of sanctions as clearly erroneous. Id. at 480.

Maryland Attorney General Opinion 100OAG003

Maryland Attorney General Reports · Feb 27, 2015

DNR could also authorize its officers to conduct checkpoint inspections for AIS, so long as DNR establishes procedures that clearly define the circumstances under which checkpoints may be set up. … Consequently, the permissibility of a vessel search and seizure would depend on whether it qualifies under one of the “‘few specifically established and well-delineated exceptions’ to the search warrant requirement.”

Thomas v. Allegany County Board of Education

51 Md. App. 312 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Apr 7, 1982

The appellants, academically qualified students in private schools, contend that as residents of Allegany County they *314 are entitled to participate in any program or instructional classes offered by the Allegany County … In so holding the Court observed: "While there is no question that parents clearly have the right to send their children to non-public schools (Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510 , 45 S. Ct. 571 , 69 L.

Gary v. USAA Life Insurance Co.

229 F. Supp. 3d 365 · District Court, D. Maryland · Jan 17, 2017

Co., 39 F.3d 1177 , 1994 WL 592750, at *3 (4th Cir. 1994), the Fourth Circuit held that the record “clearly establishes a material misrepresentation sufficient to warrant rescission of the contract by Ohio Life” under Maryland … Clearly, Ms. Maddox-Gary knew or should have known that she had that echocardiogram.

United States v. Articles of Drug Labeled in Part "Quick-O-Ver"

274 F. Supp. 443 · District Court, D. Maryland · Oct 20, 1967

The government argues and the court finds that that malady is a hangover, as clearly appears- from the display cards. … These references establish that each of the ingredients of appellants’ composition have been used, to treat alcoholism or the symptoms of excess alcohol intake. In fact, several of the references, e. g., U. S.

Bridgeford v. P.R.I.S.M. Inc

District Court, D. Maryland · Apr 6, 2022

Thus, each dismissal of a complaint in its entirety as frivolous or malicious or for failure to state a claim qualifies as a “strike” under § 1915(g). See id. … Bridgeford’s complaint for failure to state a claim qualifies as a strike under § 1915(g). See id.; Blakely, 738 F.3d at 609; 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Mr.