Case law

Salvagno v. Frew

158 Md. App. 315 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Sep 3, 2004

Expert medical testimony is not required to establish the “scope” or the “breach of the physician’s duty,” but it is required to establish the “nature of the risks inherent in a particular treatment, the probabilities of … Leahy, 326 Md. 160, 166 , 604 A.2d 73 (1992), the Court, in considering whether an “award” is divisible between liability and damages for the purpose of rejecting an award, said that “the arbitration award on the merits is clearly

R. E. Duvall Co. v. Washington, B. & A. Electric R. Co.

51 F.2d 566 · District Court, D. Maryland · Jul 21, 1931

It may also be conceded that the mere fact that a granting clause includes a specific description of existing property does not necessarily limit or qualify subsequent general provisions of a broader scope. … The rules established for the interpretation of written instruments do not justify the detachment of general words from accompanying expressions of an explanatory character, and often times, as in this case, a broad phrase

Heinlein v. Stefan

134 Md. App. 356 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Sep 29, 2000

The analytic framework for examining such a question in Maryland was established by Judge Raker in Davis v. Davis, 335 Md. 699 , 646 A.2d 365 (1994). … The adverbial qualifier is nestled snugly within the second pre-condition and is fenced off from the third precondition by a semi-colon.

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.

Chesapeake Publishing Corp. v. Williams

339 Md. 285 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jul 24, 1995

In Maryland, there exists a qualified privilege to report on legal proceedings, even if the story contains defamatory material, as long as the account is fair and substantially accurate. … We believe that the publication, if taken as a whole, is a fair and substantially accurate account of what has clearly been a protracted and complex court proceeding.

Southern Management Corp. v. Kevin Willes Construction Co.

382 Md. 524 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Aug 20, 2004

Clearly in the eyes of the *537 Court, a lien should be established and attached as a matter of law.... … Lynn, vice president of Jost, who was qualified as an expert in “construction and renovation” and "demolition.” 10 .

108OAG64

Maryland Attorney General Reports · May 22, 2023

Moreover, the capacity for such devices to produce sounds that disturbed nearby residents was well-established by 1975. … Although it is beyond the scope of this opinion to survey every local jurisdiction to determine whether all of them have been granted the power to adopt noise ordinances, many clearly have that authority.

Mitchell v. Montgomery County

88 Md. App. 542 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Oct 2, 1991

Both of these witnesses were properly qualified as experts. … Clearly, Merryman was not, as proffered by the County and asserted on appeal, solely a “fact witness to describe this road.”

Gandy v. Howard County Board Of Education

District Court, D. Maryland · Sep 1, 2021

Qualified immunity “protect[s] government officials performing discretionary functions from civil damage suits ‘insofar as [the officials’] conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … In determining whether a defendant is entitled to qualified immunity, a court must decide (1) whether the defendant has violated a constitutional right of the plaintiff and (2) whether that right was clearly established

Polacsek v. Debticated Consumer Counseling, Inc.

413 F. Supp. 2d 539 · District Court, D. Maryland · Nov 23, 2005

The former enjoy neither an inherent incapacity for criminal activity nor immunity from its consequences. … While perhaps aimed primarily at pure credit repair organizations, the scope of its language also makes it clearly extendible, under appropriate circumstances, to CCAs.

St. Luke Evangelical Lutheran Church, Inc. v. Smith

74 Md. App. 353 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jun 24, 1988

Rule 2-512(h) clearly limits each party to a maximum of four initial peremptory challenges. … To accept such reasoning would in effect re-establish the doctrine advanced by the plurality opinion in Rosenbloom v.

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

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

Zimmerman v. State

9 Md. App. 488 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · May 27, 1970

Ed. 680 , and for a waiver to be effective it must be clearly established that there was ‘an *496 intentional relinquishment or abandonment of a known right or privilege.’ Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U. S. 458, 464 , 58 S. … It does, not show that appellant personally waived his right to a jury trial nor can we say that it “clearly established” that there was acknowledgeable acquiescence in his lawyer’s waiver.

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.

Janice M. v. Margaret K.

404 Md. 661 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · May 19, 2008

Clearly, I believe [Janice M.] did do that. “There’s no question that the second prong is met. The third party must have lived with the child. … We did not determine or conclude that a person who qualifies as a de facto parent is not required, per se, to establish exceptional circumstances.

Potter v. Bethesda Fire Department, Inc.

309 Md. 347 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Apr 20, 1987

Section 21(a)(2) and § 33(c), read together, show that “quasi-public corporation” is clearly intended to be of this genus. … A fire and rescue commission was established, § 21-4B(a).

Bacon v. State

82 Md. App. 737 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · May 9, 1990

. *741 Clearly, the trial court contemplated the character of the weapon at issue in its determination to deny the appellant’s motion. … First, we noted that the Court of Appeals established, in Mackall v.

Jay v. Michael

82 Md. 1 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Nov 15, 1895

But this clause is again qualified and limited by adding “ and which said farm or parcel of land is particularly described in a deed from Priscilla Presbury” and others. … The Court was clearly right in refusing to permit the plot with accompanying description to be put in evidence.

Rouse-Fairwood Development Ltd. Partnership v. Supervisor of Assessments for Prince George's County

138 Md. App. 589 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · May 31, 2001

Regarding nonresidential uses, Lockard listed the commercial establishments permitted as a matter of right under M-X-C, but not under R-R zoning. … The principles that govern judicial review of an administrative agency’s decision, as well as statutory construction, are well established.