Case law

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.

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.

Lambert v. Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission

93 F. Supp. 2d 639 · District Court, D. Maryland · Apr 21, 2000

Summary judgment should be granted when a party “fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of a showing' sufficient to establish the existence of an essential element to that party’s case, on which the … While, as a state agency, WSSC may even be immune from suit under this provision, the court need not reach that issue because Plaintiff failed to comply with the explicit administrative requirements of the statute.

Pratt v. Trustees of the Sheppard & Enoch Pratt Hospital

88 Md. 610 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Dec 21, 1898

It may, therefore, be regarded as established and settled in this State that where a trust is specifically and clearly intended to be created and there is an uncertainty in the objects to be benefited or in the subject to … This is very clearly stated by Lord Chan *629 cellor Truro in Briggs v.

Salvagno v. Frew

388 Md. 605 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jun 10, 2005

Whether the order was right or wrong, authorized or unauthorized, it clearly disposed of the claim and thus constituted an award in favor of the defendants. … Section 3-2A-06B(b) provides that a waiver by a claimant may be made “at any time after filing the certificate of qualified expert required by § 3-2A-04(b) of this subtitle.”

Gray v. Howard County Board of Elections

218 Md. App. 654 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Aug 28, 2014

If the petition “satisfies all requirements established by law” the Election Director “shall certify that the petition process has been completed” and certify that the “question has qualified to be placed on the ballot. … The petition at issue clearly fails to meet that standard. The petition sets out a table, at the top of the signature page, listing the base densities of five residential zoning classifications.

Wenzlaff v. NationsBank

940 F. Supp. 889 · District Court, D. Maryland · Oct 18, 1996

(“The statute itself [ADA], however, clearly indicates that pregnancy was not to be considered an impairment by the Act.”); Tsetseranos v. … The Court held that reproduction is a “major life activity,” such that an impairment substantially limiting it would qualify as a disability.

Jackson v. Shawinigan Electro Products Co.

132 Md. 128 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jan 16, 1918

Judge Fowler said: “How better could the plaintiff establish his ease ? … If it was stricken out there was clearly error in that ruling.

Gray v. State

137 Md. App. 460 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Mar 28, 2001

, or to qualify as impeachment evidence.... … case, when the issue has been preserved, the court address whether a defendant has a right to witness immunity.

Dowling v. Smith

9 Md. 242 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jun 15, 1856

Whilst I hold, with the exception of its 5th section, the act of 1856, to be a legitimate exercise of legislative power, I am still clearly of opinion, that that section is an infraction of the organic law, and in this, that … That issue, when determined by the court below upon the facts, is subject to be reviewed by .this court upon appeal, and the question now is has the issue been established?

Canter v. The State Of Maryland

District Court, D. Maryland · Sep 6, 2023

Forst, 4 F.3d 244, 250 (4th Cir. 1993), “[t]his principle only applies … if all facts necessary to the affirmative defense ‘clearly appear[ ] on the face of the complaint.’” … Servs., 926 F.3d 97, 100 (4th Cir. 2019), the Court said: “The Supreme Court ‘has drawn on principles of sovereign immunity to construe the Amendment to establish that an unconsenting State is immune from suits brought

Hewitt v. Maryland State Board of Censors

256 Md. 358 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jan 7, 1970

Mueller was qualified as an expert as to literary merit and community standards. He testified in part: “Q. … Kramer was qualified as an expert on the issue of artistic and literary value. His testimony in part was: “Q. (Mr.

Matson Nav. Co. v. Seafarers International Union of North America

100 F. Supp. 730 · District Court, D. Maryland · Sep 29, 1951

Clearly, this exists in the present case. … We believe that the authorities clearly support our conclusion. In Lauf v. E. G.

Hoffman Chevrolet, Inc. v. Washington County National Savings Bank

297 Md. 691 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Nov 23, 1983

Although the check did not qualify as an attachable credit, we must, nevertheless, determine if the check was otherwise attachable. … The Trust shall not in any manner be liable for, or subject to, the debts, contracts, liabilities, engagements, or torts of any person entitled to benefits hereunder. *706 This language clearly creates a spendthrift trust

CountiesCommissioner County Powers –Whether Commissioner Counties May Provide for a Different Definition of "Newspaper" than Provided in Section 1-113 of The General Provisions Article – Whether a Change in the Definition of "Newspaper" Would Be an "Administrative Act" that Could Be Taken Without a Public Hearing

Maryland Attorney General Reports · Nov 9, 2021

A statutory definition like GP § 1-113 is generally understood as establishing the default meaning of a term. … Laws, ch. 905, rather than a title clearly treating the statute as definitional, such as “an Act defining the terms ‘newspaper’ and ‘newspaper in general circulation.’”

Thomas v. Hardisty

217 Md. 523 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jul 8, 1958

The first rests upon an alleged fact which is not shown by the bill and it is therefore clearly invalid. The second is little better. … Section 113 by impliedly permitting an application to reopen a decree for lack of jurisdiction *537 or fraud does not say that a decree void for want of jurisdiction is immune from collateral attack.

Blue

District Court, D. Maryland · Mar 30, 2026

Furthermore, because Plaintiffs do not plead a cognizable constitutional violation, the individual defendant police officers are entitled to qualified immunity from Plaintiffs’ claims. See Anderson v. … their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”).

Alcoholic BeveragesConstitutional Law – Whether Non-Durational Residency Requirements for Alcoholic Beverages Licensees in Harford County are Permissible Under the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution

Maryland Attorney General Reports · May 11, 2021

Because Chapter 462 has already been enacted, we need not consider in this opinion whether it was “clearly unconstitutional” under that standard. … It 11 The Supreme Court did not fully explain how the test it established in Thomas for alcoholic beverage regulations differs from the standard dormant Commerce Clause analysis.

Luthardt v. State

6 Md. App. 251 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Mar 10, 1969

Under these circumstances, we think that appellant’s subsequent presence among the marchers in Glade Court established not only his identity with their announced objectives, but also the fact of his voluntary involvement … Nor can appellant claim immunity from arrest and conviction for this offense simply because he, unlike some of his confederates, may have promptly obeyed the police order to the marchers to disperse.

Turner v. Md. Dept. of Health

245 Md. App. 248 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Apr 2, 2020

Turner had already passed away, the MAR Order authorized the Facility to “take such actions as are necessary to qualify [Ms. … Courts of equity intervene only to “remedy some evil or establish some right which [orphans’ courts] are powerless to grant or establish.” Gaver v. Gaver, 176 Md. 171, 189-90 (1939).