Case law

Bruce v. State

318 Md. 706 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Feb 27, 1990

Ordinarily, in order to establish that trial due process rights were violated by excessive security measures, the defendant must first establish that the security measures were observed or observable by jurors or prospective … The testimony sought to be elicited clearly goes beyond the scope of direct examination.

Johnson v. Francis

239 Md. App. 530 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Nov 28, 2018

Jackson, 442 Md. 311 (2015). 16 indemnify an employee established in this subsection.”9 Thus, the Department contends, subsection (b)(2) establishes that the “shall be liable … (2) A local government may not assert governmental or sovereign immunity to avoid the duty to defend or indemnify an employee established in this subsection.

Kidd v. State

33 Md. App. 445 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Nov 3, 1976

The Court of Appeals spoke very clearly to this point in Everhart v. … Ct. 1860 , 6 L.Ed.2d 1037 (1961), was unequivocal: “The ultimate test remains that which has been the only clearly established test in Anglo-American courts for two hundred years: the test of voluntariness.

Attorney Grievance Commission v. Strathen

287 Md. 111 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Feb 13, 1980

The following exceptions to privacy and confidentiality are hereby established: (3) A judicial tribunal may request and receive any information that is relevant to the business of the tribunal.” 1 *114 (1) The facts relevant … Noting the exception to the general rule of privacy and confidentiality of Inquiry Panel proceedings contained in Rule BV8 b 3, the court (Fischer, J.) held that the Circuit Court for Howard County qualified as a “judicial

Little v. Union Trust Co.

45 Md. App. 178 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Apr 9, 1980

; with public morals, as in the case of houses of prostitution, illegal liquor establishments, gambling houses, indecent exhibitions, bullfights, unlicensed prize fights, or public profanity; with the publice [sic] peace, … City of Annapolis, 182 Md. 307 , 34 A.2d 603 (1943), upon which appellants rely, is clearly not supportive of their argument.

Louis v. Johnson

146 Md. 115 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jun 7, 1924

While described as a laborer in the testimony, he was qualified to serve as a chauffeur, and the actual service he rendered at times in that capacity, though limited to appointments made by the appellant's wife, does not … A reversal in that case because of an objection which appeared to have been virtually waived was a result which it was clearly desirable to obviate.

Lamb v. Hammond

308 Md. 286 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jan 7, 1987

I, § 3, authorizing it “to provide by suitable enactment for voting by qualified voters of the State of Maryland who are absent at the time of any election in which they are entitled to vote and for voting by other qualified … The directory/mandatory argument is based on the provision in both subsections (c) and (d) that any ballot received “after the deadline established in this subsection may not be counted.”

FERGUSON AND DRENSHAW v. State

236 Md. 148 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jul 27, 1964

One has only to look at the photograph of the premises to see that they are one and the same business establishment. … Finally, appellants contend that the evidence of the police officers could have no weight since none of the officers testifying qualified as experts concerning lottery. This contention is without merit.

Gross v. Sessinghause & Ostergaard, Inc.

85 Md. App. 727 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jan 31, 1991

We assume that appellant cites this text in an effort to establish that a rigidly applied mechanical test is inappropriate in establishing average weekly wages. … We hold that the trial court was not clearly erroneous; in fact, it was correct. JUDGMENT AFFIRMED. COSTS TO BE PAID BY APPELLANT.

Predmore v. Allen

407 F. Supp. 1067 · District Court, D. Maryland · Mar 16, 1976

This may be done by showing (i) that he belongs to a racial minority; (ii) that he applied and was qualified for a job for which the employer was seeking applicants; (iii) that, despite his qualifications, he was rejected … The nature of that explicit waiver of sovereign immunity is presently before the Court. See Brown v.

Innerbichler v. Innerbichler

132 Md. App. 207 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jun 16, 2000

Appellee sought to establish that she had no prospects for lucrative employment. … Findings of this type are subject to review under the clearly erroneous standard embodied by Md. Rule 8-131(c); we will not disturb a factual finding unless it is clearly erroneous.

Upshur v. Hamilton

95 Md. 561 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jun 19, 1902

So also the rule is established as to the manner in which removals shall be made. … In every other respect the Marshal is clearly excepted from the Act, and his case is outside of the system. .Why therefore should the words “police officer, officer of police” be held to include Marshal, when to do so would

Handley v. Wrightson

60 Md. 198 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Apr 13, 1883

It is true a tendency has been manifested by some (hurts to restrict the application of this general rule, or to qualify it, and even, as in Pennock's Case, 20 Penn. St. … The property to which the supposed trust attaches is clearly described.

Horner v. Plumley

97 Md. 271 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Apr 5, 1903

We have not been able to discover any decided case under this section of the Code, but this practice is clearly indicated by analogy in the case of Edelin v. … But we do not think the objection can be fairly so held in view of the qualified language restricting the effect of the objection, to Mrs. Plumley’s liability.

Woodruff v. State

11 Md. App. 202 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Feb 9, 1971

And while it is clearly evident that the stag movie in Lancaster v. State, 7 Md. … I am in disagreement with the majority as to what qualifies a person as an expert witness with regard to the three elements of the Roth test and I think that the established law is not in accord with their view of the function

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

Baruah v. Young

536 F. Supp. 356 · District Court, D. Maryland · Mar 24, 1982

During this time Young was interviewing persons for positions the plaintiff alleges he was qualified to fill. … The court need not address at this juncture whether Toll would be entitled to qualified immunity should his culpability be established initially.

Mayor of Baltimore v. Comptroller of the Treasury

292 Md. 293 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jan 4, 1982

This subtitle was established by the Tax Revision Act of 1929 (Ch. 226). … This results from the immunity of the government from suit as well as from principles of public policy.”); Hughes v.

Reier v. Strauss

54 Md. 278 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jun 30, 1880

These cases do not positively decide, that the certificate shall be prima facie evidence of no other fact stated therein, but the negation and exclusion of all other facts, is clearly implied. … Hagerstown Bk., 7 Gill, 223 . “ This rule is qualified by the usage of large commercial towns, where, it is said, the uniform practice is to reach the party to be affected with notice through the post office, when both reside

Newbold v. Schlens

66 Md. 585 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Mar 15, 1887

This statute provides that, “ In all cases, when one or more persons is or are entitled to an estate for life or years, or to an estate tail, fee simple, conditional, base or qualified fee, or any other particular, limited … The guardian of an infant party concerned, however, is clearly not a party in interest, within the meaning of the Act.