Case law

Stokes v. State

72 Md. App. 673 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Nov 5, 1987

Because a defendant has a substantial right to have the jury that was impanelled ultimately decide his fate, a judge should not dismiss a juror unless the record reveals that such dismissal is clearly warranted. … By the same analysis, we do not believe that the judge’s observation of “gross inattentiveness,” disputed by defense counsel, was sufficient to establish that the juror was unable to continue.

Nichols v. Bumgarner

District Court, D. Maryland · Apr 1, 2024

Finally, Officer Nichols argues he is entitled to qualified immunity. Id. at 5–6. … He further states he does not believe Officer Bumgarner is entitled to qualified immunity. Id. at 1.

United States v. Streidel

329 Md. 533 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Mar 11, 1993

established under subsection (b) of this section, the court shall reduce the amount to conform to the limitation. “§ 11-109. … The differences between a survival and a wrongful death action were clearly delineated in Stewart v. United Elec. L. & P. Co., 104 Md. 332 , 65 A. 49 (1906).

Shillman v. Hobstetter

249 Md. 678 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · May 9, 1968

In any event, we obviously could not hold that the lower court was clearly in error in so finding. 2. … The provisions of 24 C.F.R. §§203.10-203.43 , however, establish the necessary conditions precedent for the issuance of commitments.

Long v. Pendrick Capital Partners II, LLC

374 F. Supp. 3d 515 · District Court, D. Maryland · Mar 18, 2019

"Congress clearly intended furnishers to review reports not only for inaccuracies in the information reported but also for omissions that render the reported information misleading. … Thus, as a threshold matter, the Court must decide whether the undisputed facts establish that Defendant Pendrick qualifies as a debt collector under the FDCPA.

Maryland Motor Truck Ass'n Workers' Compensation Self-Insurance Group v. Property & Casualty Insurance Guaranty Corp.

386 Md. 88 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Apr 6, 2005

Clearly, the claim of an “insurer” is not a “covered claim.” … The court found that, under those definitions, the group qualified as an “insurer.”

1000 Friends v. Ehrlich

170 Md. App. 538 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Sep 19, 2006

circumstances exist under paragraph (1) of this subsection, the Board shall determine by a majority vote that: (i) the failure to fund the project in question creates an extreme inequity, hardship, or disadvantage that clearly … Thus, the Department's request to the Board served the dual purpose of seeking approval for State funding and qualifying the project for federal funding.

Dunbar

District Court, D. Maryland · Feb 10, 2026

Qualified Immunity . Defendant argues that she is entitled to qualified immunity. … Defendant Lakanse’s qualified immunity defense is unavailing at this stage of the litigation, because Plaintiff has alleged facts suggesting that the constitutional right was well-established at the time of the incident

Wantz v. Afzal

197 Md. App. 675 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Mar 1, 2011

App. 49, 76 , 680 A.2d 532 (1996) (“The trial court’s determination is reversible if it is founded on an error of law or some serious mistake, or if the trial court clearly abused its discretion.”) … In that case, the plaintiff attempted *686 to qualify an internist, who lacked specialty in gynecology and surgery, as an expert in order to establish that the defendant physician failed to perform a hysterectomy according

Nathans Assocs. v. Mayor & City Council of Ocean City

239 Md. App. 638 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Dec 21, 2018

It also clearly shows South Division Street extended to the Atlantic Ocean and indicates, clearly, that the middle of South Division Street is the southern boundary of the property … as strong as their duty to refrain from presiding when not qualified.”

Littell v. Hickle

314 F. Supp. 1176 · District Court, D. Maryland · Jul 8, 1970

“Under the established rule the writ of mandamus cannot be made to serve the purpose of an ordinary suit. … This is clearly subject to the same infirmities as the original complaint and leave to file the amended complaint is hereby denied.

Raley v. Board of St. Mary's County Commissioners

752 F. Supp. 1272 · District Court, D. Maryland · Sep 7, 1990

As a *1278 first essential step, the plaintiff must establish a four element prima facie case: (1) that the employee is a member of a protected class; (2) that the employee was qualified for the job and the job performance … The present case clearly does not rise to this level. Sexual innuendos at Raley’s expense, although present, were also isolated incidents.

Rosenberg v. Rosenberg

64 Md. App. 487 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Sep 10, 1985

There is clearly no hope of reconciliation between the parties. … This is clearly the situation here.” (citation omitted).

Hurt v. All Corrections Officer and Staff employed by North Branch C.I.

District Court, D. Maryland · Mar 2, 2021

Wards, 738 F.3d 607, 610 (4th Cir. 2013) (dismissal of complaint on grounds enumerated in § 1915(g), and not procedural posture at dismissal, determines whether the dismissal qualifies as a strike). … incarcerated or detained in any facility, brought an action or appeal in a court of the United States that was dismissed on the grounds that it . . . fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, unless” he can establish

Spencer v. State

450 Md. 530 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Nov 29, 2016

Moreover, as discussed, each explanation offered by counsel has been well established to be valid and race neutral. … It will not set aside the judgment of the trial court on the evidence unless clearly erroneous”).

Deckman v. Deckman

15 Md. App. 553 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jun 30, 1972

Dougherty, 187 Md. 21 , 48 A. 2d 451 (1946), Judge Delaplaine speaking for the Court, said at pp. 27-8: ‘To prove adultery, the circumstantial evidence must clearly establish (1) a disposition on the part of the defendant … From this circumstantial evidence together with the total evidence, he found that the adultery of the appellant had been clearly established.

Payne v. Payne

73 Md. App. 473 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jan 7, 1988

Payne produced a real estate agent whom he qualified as an expert and from whom he attempted to elicit evidence that the house would have sold earlier but for Mrs. Payne’s willful breach of the separation agreement. … Payne’s counsel stated that “I’m attempting to establish the basis to try to ask the ultimate question as to whether or not this house would have sold based on her expertise ... I believe that Mrs.

United Food & Commercial Workers International Union v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.

453 Md. 482 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jun 22, 2017

In addition, “[t]he NLRA established the NLRB to adjudicate labor disputes between and among employees, unions and employers.” Law, 373 Md. at 468. … Although the Court did not explicitly state that peaceful trespass supports the local interest exception to NLRA preemption, this was clearly the holding of the case.

Morris v. State

153 Md. App. 480 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Dec 4, 2003

An exercise of discretion, by its very nature, does not establish a precedent. 3 5. … This was not a case of “outraged innocence qualifying for an act of grace.” d.

Carter v. Baltimore City Police Department

District Court, D. Maryland · May 17, 2022

Sovereign Immunity The doctrine of sovereign immunity “prohibits suits against the State or its entities absent its consent.” Beka Industries, Inc. v. … BPD argues that sovereign immunity shields it from Plaintiff’s claims.