Case law

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.

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.

Simon v. Robinson

221 Md. 200 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Sep 5, 2001

Even though the defendant did not, either in his brief or in his oral argument, clearly indicate that he was appealing the adverse ruling on the demurrer, yet it may be concluded that it was this point to which he was directing … Thus, the question of Simon’s reasonable belief in the existence of a qualified privilege was a question of fact for the jury to decide. That was done.

Dixon v. State

133 Md. App. 325 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jul 13, 2000

It may well be that one form of crime B is a lesser included offense of one form of crime A, whereas other forms of both A and B are immune from such mandatory coupling. … The two forms of aggravation are not mutually exclusive and Newton does not directly address the situation wherein *351 both supporting rationales are clearly established.

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.”

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

Schalk v. Associated Anesthesiology Practice

316 F. Supp. 2d 244 · District Court, D. Maryland · Apr 27, 2004

Moreover, he claimed that he need not establish an employer-employee relationship to state a claim under the Rehabilitation Act. … Schalk clearly raises a claim under the ADA, and he asserts facts that, if proven, would entitle him to relief.

Lancaster v. United States

927 F. Supp. 887 · District Court, D. Maryland · Jun 4, 1996

The Act also contains several exceptions to this waiver of sovereign immunity. … Assuming for the purposes of this motion that the Hospital Memorandum did establish a policy requiring VAMC management to warn residents of the lead paint hazard, the policy clearly was a general one that left it to the discretion

Riverdale Park v. Askhar

474 Md. 581 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jul 15, 2021

The Town contends that because Ashkar, in its estimation, was not as qualified as AlleyCat, he cannot establish a prima facie case for discrimination. … Ashkar was not required, as the Town contends, to show that Greg’s was more qualified than AlleyCat to establish a prima facie case of discrimination.

Millard v. State

8 Md. App. 419 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jan 12, 1970

Jacobson’s testimony, if believed, clearly established that appellant possessed an extra Y chromosome (XYY) and that he was therefore genetically abnormal. … Jacobson was a well qualified geneticist was clear beyond question.

Ennals

District Court, D. Maryland · Jun 30, 2026

only by qualified immunity.” … And well-established amongst ‘advocative functions is a prosecutor’s “decision as to whether [ ] evidence was exculpatory.” Carter v.

Younger v. Green

District Court, D. Maryland · Dec 19, 2019

Qualified Immunity. Crowder contends that he is shielded from liability as to Younger’s § 1983 claims under the doctrine of qualified immunity. … “Qualified immunity shields government officials from liability in a § 1983 suit as long as their conduct has not violated ‘clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have

Haavistola v. Community Fire Co. of Rising Sun, Inc.

812 F. Supp. 1379 · District Court, D. Maryland · Feb 10, 1993

Plaintiff Haavistola asserts that application of the Garrett factors to the facts here clearly indicates that the Eire Company’s members, including the plaintiff, are “employees” under Title VII. … Specifically, Md.Ann.Code, art. 38A § 7, establishes the Office of the Fire Marshal whose responsibilities include “the establishment and enforcement of fire safety practices throughout the State, ...

Jung Chul Park v. Cangen Corp.

416 Md. 505 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Oct 27, 2010

The Court held that the partnership qualified as a collective entity, so the partner, as a custodian of the records of that entity, could not invoke the privilege. … immunize the act of production; such immunity would preserve the appellant's Fifth Amendment rights with respect to his conduct in producing the documents, Kastigar v.

Lustine Chevrolet v. Cadeaux

19 Md. App. 30 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Aug 24, 1973

Appellee contends that she established all of the essential elements of fraud. … Nor was there any expert testimony to establish that fact with the requisite reasonable certainty.

T. R. Ltd. v. Lee

55 Md. App. 629 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Oct 6, 1983

There is no mention of a lien, and none can be implied from the mere establishment of a monetary obligation on the owner of a vehicle. … It appears, however, that the tractor-trailer was not covered by a bill of lading, as is required to establish a carrier’s lien.

Higgins v. E.I. DuPont De Nemours & Co.

671 F. Supp. 1055 · District Court, D. Maryland · Jul 28, 1987

As Prosser points out, it is really only the immunity of strict liability to negligence-based defenses (like contributory negligence) that distinguishes strict liability from negligence in failure to warn cases. … DuPont, then, clearly qualifies as a knowledgeable industrial purchaser with respect to bulk chemicals in general and the possible teratogenic effects of glycol ether acetates in particular.

Rockville Fuel & Feed Co. v. Board of Appeals

257 Md. 183 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Mar 4, 1970

Clearly the applicant has the burden of adducing testimony which will show that his use meets the prescribed standards and requirements. Board of County Comm’rs v. Luria, 249 Md. 1, 3 . … Federline, who owns the plumbing supply company, a non-conforming use built after a heavy industrial use already was established on the site of the proposed concrete plant.

Property & Casualty Insurance Guaranty Corp. v. Beebe-Lee

431 Md. 474 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Apr 25, 2013

Additionally, PCIGC notes that the umbrella policy excluded recreational vehicles and questions whether the go-cart qualified for coverage. . … Section 9-310(b) establishes a priority of recovery if an insured could recover from more than one guaranty association, but that is not an issue in this case.