Case law

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

Mallon v. Frostburg State University

District Court, D. Maryland · Sep 15, 2021

FSU’s immunization policy “requires all students to be immunized or show proof of immunity for measles, mumps, rubella, diphtheria, and tetanus, and have documentation of such immunity on file with the Brady Health Center … Everyone involved had a duty of care to know the rules for which they were enforcing but clearly didn’t. They acted arbitrarily and capriciously.” (Id. at 7-8).

Harwood v. Marshall

9 Md. 83 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jun 15, 1856

.” — “It ought to be used upon all occasions where the law has established no specific remedy, and where, in justice and good government, there ought to be one.” … In this view of the point the case is clearly within the tenth section of the act of 1826, ch. 200, as expounded in Kennerly vs.

Witte v. Azarian

369 Md. 518 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jun 18, 2002

The parties agree that the actual giving of testimony is to be *532 included; they clearly disagree whether the conducting of medical evaluations, without treatment, upon referral from an attorney or insurance carrier is … He may. or may not qualify as a “professional witness” in the more generic conception of that term, but the evidence did not suffice to establish that he devoted more than 20% of his professional activity to activities that

York v. Maryland Trust Co.

150 Md. 354 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Apr 7, 1926

After qualifying as executor, the Maryland Trust Company sent Mr. … If the intention of the testator can be gathered from the will, his wishes should be gratified in these matters as well as others, unless in conflict with some well established rules of law.”

American Civil Liberties U. of Md. v. BOARD OF PUB. WKS.

357 F. Supp. 877 · District Court, D. Maryland · Dec 13, 1972

Qualifications for the aid are set forth in § 66: In order to qualify for State aid apportionments pursuant to this subtitle, any institution of higher education must meet each of the following requirements: (a) The institution … As such it is clearly a “jurisdictional “case or controversy” requirement, determination on the authority of Maryland Citizens for a Representative General Assembly v. Governor, supra.

E.E.O.C. v. Citizens Bank & Trust Co.

117 F.R.D. 366 · District Court, D. Maryland · Jan 22, 1987

In this case, though, there is every reason for the balancing test associated with the qualified privilege at issue to come out in favor of discovery and against privilege. *367 As to the “informer’s privilege,” the obvious … The Court will not, however, require production of the documents listed on Appendix B to paper no. 22, for to do so would clearly disclose the identity of informers without any clear need to do so at this time.

Central Credit Union of Maryland v. Comptroller of Treasury

243 Md. 175 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jun 21, 1966

Even were the word “non-profit” held to apply to institutions other than those which are religious, charitable or educational in nature, Central could not qualify as a non-profit organization. … Judge Barrett, in an able and comprehensive opinion, held that Tabeo, an institution organized under the Federal Credit Union Act ( 12 U.S.C.A., §§ 1751-1775 ), was a federal instrumentality enjoying implied constitutional immunity

Shapiro v. Massengill

105 Md. App. 743 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jul 6, 1995

We conclude that the court was not clearly erroneous in ascribing ambiguity to the agreement. … A qualified privilege may be abused, and thus defeated, if the plaintiff can establish that the defendant acted with constitutional malice or that the statement was not made in furtherance of the reason for the privilege

Dorf v. Skolnik

280 Md. 101 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Apr 11, 1977

Once a domicile, is determined or established a person retains his domicile at such place unless the evidence affirmatively shows an abandonment of that domicile. … Given that background, we find the judgment of the chancellor not to have been clearly erroneous when he concluded that she had abandoned her domicile at the home of her parents and had established a home of her own in Baltimore

State v. Beers

21 Md. App. 39 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Apr 19, 1974

App. 465 , 287 A. 2d 310 (1972), cert. denied, 265 Md. 740 (1972), we said, at 475-76: “The qualifying phrase setting out the additional *42 element that the controlled dangerous substance shall be ‘in sufficient quantity … These two rules concerning duplicity are clearly stated in Ayre v. State, supra: 1. “It is firmly established that only one offense may be charged in a single count.

Ruby v. Bowlus

217 Md. 115 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · May 22, 1958

Other decisions establish the right of a bankrupt to appeal if the trustee will not or does not. Carroll v. Hannon (Pa.), 136 A. 212, 213 ; Kagey v. Fox West Coast Theatres Corp. (Kan.), 31 P. 2d 67 . … Under this testimony, clearly the price received for the property at the sale was not so inadequate or insignificant that it could shock the conscience of the court.

Dill v. Ellicott

7 F. Cas. 699 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Maryland · Nov 15, 1854

Nor do the words which follow qualify or restrain, in any degree, the meaning of the words above quoted; they declare that “the legislature shall provide by law all necessary forfeitures and penalties against usury.” … Now these words clearly embrace a contract by which .usurious interest is to be paid at a future day, as well as contracts in which it is taken and received.

Ray v. Mayor of Baltimore

203 Md. App. 15 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Feb 1, 2012

How To Qualify As Living “Nearby”? Let Us Count the Ways Does he qualify then for prima facie aggrievement? … He can clearly see the Subject Property from his place of employment.

Horowitz v. Sherman

District Court, D. Maryland · May 11, 2020

Plaintiffs contend that Defendants do not seek qualified immunity here. (Id.). … for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”

Chew v. State

71 Md. App. 681 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jul 7, 1987

Batson established clear guidelines by which a criminal defendant can meet this burden of establishing a prima facie case of discrimination. … 13 Will European *712 Spaniards qualify as Hispanics, even without an Indian component to their racial makeup? .

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.

Doe v. Prince George's County Public Schools

District Court, D. Maryland · Dec 6, 2022

Although the Individual Defendants briefly reference qualified immunity and claim that the right at issue was not clearly established at the time of the relevant events, they provide.no meaningful analysis of this defense … In any event, the Court will not dismiss these claims on qualified immunity grounds because it finds that the Fourth Amendment right at issue was clearly established by a consensus of cases of persuasive

Gee v. State

2 Md. App. 61 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Sep 26, 1967

The argument is patently frivolous. *69 II The appellant has framed the second issue in terms of a privileges and immunities violation. … Madison, 240 Md. 265 , bring their cases clearly within the rule set forth in the above case.” *71 The appellant contends that he has been placed in double jeopardy although his first conviction was reversed under Gideon

Maryland Attorney General Opinion 100OAG120

Maryland Attorney General Reports · Oct 21, 2015

The language the Department emphasizes is clearly the language of requirement and, as applied to the Department, it operates as such. … Where the requirement clearly meets and is simply more stringent than a corresponding State requirement, the answer is no and the inquiry ends there.