Case law

Shafer Bros. v. Kite

43 Md. App. 601 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Oct 16, 1979

[Sjuch authorization may be established, as it was in the instant case, by oral evidence.” Finally, in Jamestown Banking Co. v. Conneaut Lake Dock & D. … Affidavit Not Required — Exception — Partial Immunity. A motion need not be supported by affidavit unless it is founded on facts not apparent from the record or from papers on file in the proceedings.

Maryland Commissioner of Labor & Industry v. Cole Roofing Co.

368 Md. 459 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Apr 9, 2002

If, despite this prima facie evidence, Cole believed that the incident was nonetheless unforeseeable and unpreventable, it should have, and did have, the burden of establishing that fact, and it clearly failed to do so. … That is clearly not the same standard, and, as a result, the instant violation cannot be regarded as a repeated one within the meaning of LE § 5-810.

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.

M.A.B. v. Bd. of Educ. of Talbot Cnty.

286 F. Supp. 3d 704 · District Court, D. Maryland · Mar 12, 2018

Because § 5-518(c) waives a county board of education's Eleventh Amendment immunity from discrimination claims under federal law and the constitution, the Court concludes that such immunity does not apply to M.A.B.' … Thus, Price Waterhouse establishes that Title VII's prohibition on discrimination because of sex includes-more broadly-gender stereotyping.

Pevia v. Bishop

District Court, D. Maryland · Sep 4, 2019

But, an official is not entitled to qualified immunity if he deprived an individual of a constitutional right and that right was clearly established at the time of the violation. … To overcome a claim of qualified immunity from a § 1983 claim, there must be a showing that (1) the government official violated a federally protected right of the plaintiff; and (2) that right was clearly established at

Associated Utility Contractors of Maryland, Inc. v. Mayor of Baltimore

83 F. Supp. 2d 613 · District Court, D. Maryland · Feb 16, 2000

The numerical goals must be waivable if qualified minority applications are scarce, and such goals must bear a reasonable relation to minority percentages in the relevant qualified labor pool, not in the population as a whole … It clearly could not have produced data upon which the City actually relied in establishing the set-aside goals for 1999.

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.

Mark Downs, Inc. v. McCormick Properties, Inc.

51 Md. App. 171 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Mar 5, 1982

The two county officials demurred on the ground of governmental immunity. … Primarily, what the Court has done in applying the qualifying doctrine is to fashion, as part of the relief granted, conditions designed to lessen, if not avoid, some special harm to the servient land, or to prevent the dominant

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.

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.

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

Union Mining Co. v. Blank

181 Md. 62 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Oct 28, 1942

An employee of a manufacturing lumber establishment -in which polluted river water was permitted to mingle with water from the city water works, contracted typhoid fever therefrom and died. … This is so, even though it comes from a well such as the one in the case before us, which has been used with apparent immunity by the community for one hundred years,.

Hitchins v. Mayor of Cumberland

208 Md. 134 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Nov 4, 1955

It is further provided that the General Assembly shall act in relation to such matters only by general laws applicable to all municipal corporations in any of the several classes to be established. … The law is well established to the contrary. In Willing v. Bozman, 52 Md. 44 , a public local law of Wicomico County was held to have been repealed by a subsequent general law dealing with the same matter.

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

Elliott v. Patterson

12 Md. App. 341 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jun 23, 1971

established in Section 499. … To so hold would involve the impermissible exercise of inserting words into a statute to express an intention clearly at odds with that intended by the Legislature. See State v. Blanken, 11 Md. App. 460 .

Royall v. Dicks

Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Apr 3, 2026

Royall alleged “[t]his statement made to third parties was clearly about” him, given he has “shave[d] his face completely for more than fifty years” and “is not married.” … The Amended Complaint alleges sufficient facts to establish that Dicks made defamatory statements about Royall’s sexual orientation but does not allege sufficient facts to establish Jewell did so. 1.

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.

Alternatives Unlimited, Inc. v. New Baltimore City Board of School Commissioners

155 Md. App. 415 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Mar 3, 2004

Id. *491 On appeal, the Division invoked sovereign immunity. … Once the basis for Count V is clearly identified, the answer is easy.

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.

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.