Case law

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

Habron v. Epstein

412 F. Supp. 256 · District Court, D. Maryland · Apr 6, 1976

While the cases cited by plaintiff illustrate situations wherein the Court declared the statute in question unconstitutional, the statutes in those cases were clearly dissimilar to the one at hand — James v. … These results, which are likely to flow from Section 105A, are palpably sufficient to pass McGowan scrutiny by clearly offering a legitimate purpose for the statute.

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.

Preston v. State

57 Md. App. 403 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Feb 2, 1984

Payments made by a victim for which he received reimbursement from his insurance carrier, did not qualify for restitution. Montgomery v. State, 292 Md. 155 , 438 A.2d 490 (1981). … Clearly the lower court’s order of March 13, 1961, in this case was not appealable, unless the proceeding below was under the Post Conviction Act.

Shapiro v. Montgomery County Council

269 Md. 380 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jun 25, 1973

Hopkins, a qualified planning consultant, and Samuel Novak, a qualified architect. Mr. … Even if we assume, arguendo — but without deciding — that the appellants are correct in their contention, our prior decisions are clearly to the effect that although a substantial change in conditions in the neighborhood

Anastasi v. Montgomery County

123 Md. App. 472 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Oct 28, 1998

After the scores were returned, applicants were grouped into two separate categories — one marked “well-qualified” and another marked “qualified” — and then ranked, by score, within their respective categories. … The categories were established on September 30, 1993, and “held open” until September 30, 1995.

Mitchell v. State

Court of Appeals of Maryland · Aug 14, 2024

However, we “may overrule a case that either was ‘clearly wrong and contrary to established principles’ or ‘has been superseded by significant changes in the law or facts.’” Scott v. … The process of examining qualified jurors is governed by Maryland Rule 4- 312(e)(1): The trial judge may permit the parties to conduct an examination of qualified jurors or may conduct the examination after

Weyerhaeuser Corp. v. Koppers Co., Inc.

771 F. Supp. 1406 · District Court, D. Maryland · Feb 26, 1991

The applicable standards for analyzing a motion for summary judgment under Rule 56 are well-established. … Thus, testing for hazardous material qualifies as a “removal” cost under the statute.

Citrano v. John Crane-Houdaille, Inc.

1 F. Supp. 3d 459 · District Court, D. Maryland · Feb 27, 2014

To qualify for removal under § 1442(a)(1), “the defendant must raise a colorable claim to a federal law defense and establish that there is a causal connection between plaintiffs’ claims and acts it performed under color … The defendant does not need to prove that his federal immunity defense will succeed to obtain removal. Jamison v. Wiley, 14 F.3d 222, 238 (4th Cir.1994).

Greenstein v. Meister

279 Md. 275 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Feb 1, 1977

When the voluminous expert testimony in this case is considered in its entirety, it clearly permits an inference that the conscious pain and suffering experienced by Mr. … The hospital records themselves establish that only four of the original seven units of carefully screened blood that had been allocated for Mr.

Kaur v. Baltimore County Police Department

District Court, D. Maryland · Dec 9, 2022

The record evidence clearly establishes that the Sears Defendants had probable cause to believe that Plaintiff had committed theft of Sears’ property from the store. … In addition, public officials (including police officers) are entitled to qualified immunity for federal constitutional violations when “in light of clearly established law, [they] could reasonably believe that

Thompson v. Thompson

40 Md. App. 256 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Sep 6, 1978

toothless one,’ id., at 510, 96 S.Ct. at 2764 , a proposition clearly demonstrated by our previous decisions in this area.” … No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor

Shub v. Simpson

196 Md. 177 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Nov 1, 1950

The question of the validity of Sec. 15 is now clearly raised before us by parties who have a direct interest in its decision. … to hold office, was to secure *189 to voters or electors the right to vote for those qualified under the charter(Emphasis supplied.)

Jackson v. Maryland Department of Commerce

District Court, D. Maryland · Feb 4, 2020

It is well- established that “an unconsenting State is immune from suits brought in federal courts by her own ‘citizens as well as by citizens of another State.” Edelman v. Jordan, 415 U.S. 651, 663 (1974). … Once again, such a practice, if true, would qualify as adverse employment action based on race.

Maryland Shipbuilding & Drydock Co. v. Maryland Commission On Human Relations

70 Md. App. 538 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Mar 9, 1987

Whether the evidence, in light of the entire record, establishes that Jackson was neither as qualified nor more qualified than employees promoted to the position of lieutenant guard. III. … Insofar as appellant’s argument asserts that Jackson failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination, we reject it out of hand.

Deems v. State

127 Md. 624 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jan 28, 1916

There is nothing in the record to qualify the *629 significance of this action or to enable us to say that it was not understood by the jury according to its apparent purpose as a direction that their verdict should leave … This objection was properly overruled: The evidence shows clearly that the confession was not influenced by any promise, threat or inducement of any kind.

Bohnert v. State

312 Md. 266 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Apr 7, 1988

It was clearly apparent that the State’s case hinged solely on the testimony of Alicia. There was no physical evidence to support her story. … We have never indicated that a person can qualify as an “expert in credibility,” no matter what his experience or expertise.