Case law

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.

City Stores Co. v. Shull

161 F. Supp. 459 · District Court, D. Maryland · Apr 17, 1958

Some tests are well established. … McDougal, 225 U.S. 561, 569 , 32 S.Ct. 704, 706 , 56 L.Ed. 1205 * * * Today, even more clearly than in the past, ‘the federal nature of the right to be established is decisive — not the source of the authority to establish

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.

Attorney Grievance Commission v. Wright

306 Md. 93 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · May 2, 1986

In response to the Petitioner’s contention that the Complainants did not need the services of an attorney, William Mitchell, Jr., Esquire, after being qualified as an expert, testified as follows: “... … The theory underlying the use of time records and hourly rates for the billing of legal services is that the resultant bill will be a reasonable one within the range established by the governing factors set forth in DR 2-

Canter v. Mamboob

District Court, D. Maryland · Mar 23, 2020

The Court found no basis for qualified immunity because Defendants had not offered sufficient evidence to establish that they did not violate Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment rights. Id. at 11 n.5. … entitled to qualified immunity).

Moore v. State

26 Md. App. 556 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jun 3, 1975

Chilimindris established the corpus delicti. The admissible declaration of the young child that “Daddy did it,” helped to establish the criminal agency of the appellant. … The verdict, therefore, was not clearly erroneous. Judgment affirmed; costs to be paid by appellant. 1 .

Balt. City. Bd. of Elections v. May. & City of Balt.

Court of Appeals of Maryland · Feb 3, 2025

Fund established; provision of payments. 1. … “We recognize two extremely narrow situations where it would be appropriate” to overrule our own precedent—“when the decision is clearly wrong and contrary to established principles or where there is a showing that the

Tarachanskaya v. Volodarsky

168 Md. App. 587 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · May 2, 2006

Living arrangements established as the result of a protective order may have relevance in determining custody.... Id. at 136-37, 762 A.2d 198 . … Snow nor Dizard “demonstrated the minimal amount of competence to qualify as experts in this case.”

In re Darryl P.

211 Md. App. 112 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Mar 25, 2013

In such a case, the failure of the appellant to qualify for exclusion pursuant to Mapp v. Ohio is, ipso facto, the failure to qualify for exclusion pursuant to the “fruit of the poisonous tree” doctrine. … Arizona immunity shield was never born. If, arguendo, it was born, it died within two weeks. As our subheading foretold, this subcontention is a case of “Edwards v. Arizona Inapplicable.”

Williams v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority

District Court, D. Maryland · Jul 10, 2023

The Compact established WMATA as an interstate agency and instrumentality of each signatory. Id. at 359. Thus, WMATA “enjoys the same rights and privileges as a state, including sovereign immunity.” Bailbey v. Wash. … In finding that the plaintiff’s claims were barred by sovereign immunity, the court adopted a broad, inclusive view of what falls within the scope of law enforcement activity, and thus what qualifies as a quintessential

Gaither v. Anne Arundel County

94 Md. App. 569 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jan 11, 1993

As discussed earlier, crucial to an employee’s prima facie case is the employee establishing that he is otherwise qualified to perform the essential functions of a job. Baltimore, 86 Md.App. at 176, 586 A.2d 37 . … Establishing that one is “otherwise qualified” for a job necessarily entails a consideration of whether one would be qualified if his handicap were accommodated by the employer. Id. at 174 , 586 A.2d 37 .

Mayor of Baltimore v. One 1995 Corvette Vin No. 1G1YY22P585103433

119 Md. App. 691 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Feb 26, 1998

Unlike the documentary evidence immunized from seizure by Boyd , contraband would not in that case have enjoyed any Fifth Amendment protection and would not have enjoyed the then-current immunity of the “mere evidence rule … Mulcahey has failed to establish by the “clearest proof’ that Congress has provided a sanction so punitive as to “transfor[m] what was clearly intended as a civil remedy into a criminal penalty.”

Maryland Committee for Fair Representation v. Tawes, Governor & Board of State Canvassers

228 Md. 412 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Apr 25, 1962

Clearly, Section 1343 (3) and (4) has no application at all, since there is no question pertaining to the jurisdiction of a Federal District Court. Section 1983 of Title 42, U. S. … Had the actual facts been established, by stipulation or otherwise, much time and expense possibly would have been saved. .

Bessenyei v. Raiti

266 F. Supp. 2d 408 · District Court, D. Maryland · Jun 9, 2003

Salvatore Raiti who, according to Raiti, told plaintiff he should report to the hand clinic at Union Memorial Hospital where the doctors were better qualified to treat the injury. (Id. at 19-20.) … Plaintiff has failed to establish the existence of a relationship giving rise to a duty owed to him by Dr. Birely.

Carroll v. United Steelworkers of America

498 F. Supp. 976 · District Court, D. Maryland · May 15, 1980

Nonetheless, summary judgment is properly granted, even in complex cases, where the facts established by the movants’ evidence are opposed solely by the opponents’ conclusory assertions or are clearly uncontroverted, and … Thus, with the establishment of the pool areas, if the employee was qualified to perform the work and if the vacancy had not otherwise been filled, the worker could use his plant seniority to bid on the job vacancy in another

Manigault v. State

61 Md. App. 271 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jan 10, 1985

A simple, common law assault does not qualify. Either an assault with intent to rob or an *280 assault with intent to murder would so qualify. … Each fourth count fails to locate the place of the crime so as to establish jurisdiction and/or venue except by reference to the first count.

Crowley v. Fox Broadcasting Co.

851 F. Supp. 700 · District Court, D. Maryland · May 3, 1994

Congress enacted this statutory scheme to immunize federal employees from liability for tortious acts caused by them while acting in the scope of their employment. See U.S. v. … Clearly more than two years have passed since December 12, 1990, when Plaintiff was injured.

Haina and Strawbridge v. State

30 Md. App. 295 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Feb 26, 1976

Cir. 1975). “(7) immunity grants (Despite the fact that the controlled dangerous substance law specifically provides for the granting of immunity Art. 27 § 298 (c), the record discloses that only once during trial did the … State attempt to grant immunity and immunity was not mentioned at all in the application.)”

Brown v. State

168 Md. App. 400 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Apr 18, 2006

Appellant concedes that the State’s evidence was sufficient to establish that he committed this offense, but he argues that this Court must reverse his conviction on the ground that THE [HONORABLE DAVID S. … State, 390 Md. 544 , 890 A.2d 288 (2006), in which the Court of Appeals recently answered “no” to the question of “whether a police officer, testifying at a suppression hearing, is required to be qualified as an expert witness

Parker v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance

263 Md. 206 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Oct 19, 1971

The circumstances of the accident which give rise to liability determine who qualifies as an insured in a given case.” 212 A. 2d at 868 . … If Sheila had amended her declaration to add her brother as a joint defendant, clearly, State Farm would have had no obligation under the policy to defend young Parker.