Case law

Davis v. State

125 Md. App. 713 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Apr 5, 1999

Although we agree that the holding in Carbo is applicable herein, we disagree with the State’s assertion that no Maryland cases have addressed the issue of whether the declarant needs to be clearly identified in order for … his statement to qualify as admissible hearsay under the state of mind exception.

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.

Ennis v. Crenca

322 Md. 285 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Mar 26, 1991

Crenca is an elected official, she clearly falls within the definition of an “employee” under the Act. 4 Montgomery County, being a chartered county, is a “local government.” 5 Whether Ms. … Definitions. ****** “(d) Local government. — ‘Local ‘Local government’means: (1) A chartered county established under Article 25A of the Code; ..." 6 .

Classen Immunotherapies, Inc. v. Shionogi, Inc.

993 F. Supp. 2d 569 · District Court, D. Maryland · Jan 29, 2014

The fundamental problem for Classen is that the actions of the Defendants complained of took place in a harbor made safe and immune from Classen’s attacks by federal law. … Classen’s charges of infringement are clearly foreclosed by § 271(e)(1).

Gainer v. State

40 Md. App. 382 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Oct 11, 1978

The principal contention of the State in this case is that the appellant was clearly the aggressor and, not being without fault, may not avail himself of the castle doctrine. … Courts differ in interpreting what qualifies as being within the curtilage. See Beard v. United States, 158 U. S. 550 (1895) (property surrounding defendant’s farm was within the curtilage); State v.

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.

Archers Glen Partners, Inc. v. Garner

176 Md. App. 292 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jul 6, 2007

The court concluded that it was *310 not, while acknowledging that the Court of Appeals had held that the Commission was a State agency and immune from tort suits under the doctrine of State sovereign immunity. … The facts in Richmarr, 117 Md.App. 607 , 701 A.2d 879 , are an example of when a proposed use would be clearly inconsistent with the plan and when the express exception would be clearly applicable.

Welbourn v. Kleinle

92 Md. 114 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Dec 7, 1900

J., said : “ It is not necessary to establish that there has been actual fraud or imposition practiced by the party holding the confidential or fiduciary relation, the onus being upon him to establish the perfect fairness … This shows the same result, but separates more clearly the statement of the business of the firm from the proposition for settlement.

Singer v. Black & Decker Corp.

769 F. Supp. 911 · District Court, D. Maryland · Jun 12, 1991

In essence, the early retirement program, on a one time basis, allowed qualified employees to retire with the same benefits as if they were age 62. … The terms of eligibility for the early retirement offerings are unambiguous — clearly stating that eligibility is limited to those who retire within the specified time period or "window.”

Koenick v. Felton

973 F. Supp. 522 · District Court, D. Maryland · Jul 2, 1997

Hence, the secular effects of the statute at issue in this case clearly predominate. … For similar reasons, the Maryland statute even more clearly satisfies the second prong of the Lemon test.

State v. Waine

444 Md. 692 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Aug 28, 2015

Unless we are persuaded that Unger is either “clearly wrong and contrary to established principles” or “superseded by significant changes in the law,” we must leave the decision standing. DRD Pool Serv., Inc. v. … The State *701 concentrates solely on arguing that the decision was clearly wrong and contrary to established principles.

Kearney v. Berger

182 Md. App. 186 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Oct 2, 2008

Carroll established that the filing of a proper certificate operates as a condition precedent to filing a claim in Circuit Court. … Because the trial court never addressed whether appellants established good cause, we will not resolve whether good cause existed in this case.

Fludd v. Kirkwood

Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Dec 16, 2021

Kirkwood had presented grounds establishing continued personal jurisdiction over Mr. … Kirkwood’s motion, qualifying it not only as a responsive pleading but also as a general appearance. See McCormick v. St.

Keyes v. State

236 Md. 74 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jul 23, 1964

It was within the province of the trial court to make this determination and we cannot say that it was clearly erroneous in so doing. … We cannot say that said finding was clearly erroneous. The judgment will therefore be affirmed. Judgment affirmed.

Jabari-Kitwala v. Montgomery County Public Schools

District Court, D. Maryland · Jun 23, 2023

As to all three remaining allegations5, the Plaintiff must establish that the retaliatory conduct: (1) qualifies as an “adverse employment action;” and (2) that a causal nexus exists between the retaliatory conduct and … Here, the Court finds that all three remaining allegations do qualify as adverse employment actions for the purposes of a retaliation claim.

Albert v. Mayor of Baltimore

2 Md. 159 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Dec 15, 1852

However this may he, we do not feel ourselves called upon to disregard what we conceive to be the clearly expressed purpose of the legislature. … To announce any other doctrine, would be to proclaim a perfect immunity to the bank to assist in the infliction of wrong, provided all knowledge of its unauthorised acts be kept from the party to be injured, until the injustice

Marwani v. Catering by Uptown

416 Md. 312 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Oct 22, 2010

—To qualify for a license, an applicant shall: (1) Comply with the requirements of this subtitle and the rules and regulations adopted under this subtitle; (2) Agree to permit access to the food establishment for the purpose … There is nothing in the record to suggest that Mary Ann Goyena was not qualified to be the applicant for the license.

Smith v. Luber

165 Md. App. 458 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Nov 3, 2005

Both parties were asked qualifying questions by their attorneys about their acceptance of the agreement on the record and both acknowledged their acceptance. … Maryland law clearly establishes that attorney’s fees may not be recovered absent an express contractual provision, statutory authority, or the application of Md. Rule 1-341. Moore v.

Nader for President 2004 v. Maryland State Board of Elections

399 Md. 681 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jun 21, 2007

In other words, the uniform, statewide registry is the official registry of who qualifies to vote in this State, and, thus, who qualifies to sign a nominating petition. … It is a procedure established by the State Board.

Tutt v. Robinson

District Court, D. Maryland · Jul 24, 2025

Plaintiff clearly challenges state court proceedings that are ongoing. See Parsons 5 v. McDaniel, 784 Fed. … The naming of state court judicial officers is improper as they have immunity. In Murphy v.