Case law

Long v. Ringling Bros.-Barnum & Bailey Combined Shows, Inc.

882 F. Supp. 1553 · District Court, D. Maryland · May 4, 1995

Plaintiff clearly is entitled to a back pay award pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(g). … A prima facie case of discrimination under Title VII is established by showing that the individual for whom relief is requested is a member of a protected group, was qualified for the job for which she applied, was rejected

Hitchcock v. Collenberg

140 F. Supp. 894 · District Court, D. Maryland · Apr 19, 1956

Due consideration, therefore, for the protection of society may well induce the state to exclude from prac- ' tice those who have not such a license, or who are found upon examination not to be fully qualified.” … Plaintiffs claim that the Maryland Medical Practice Act, as interpreted and enforced by the Maryland courts and by the defendants herein, abridges their privileges and immunities, deprives them of property without due process

(2002)

87 Op. Att'y Gen. 137 · Maryland Attorney General Reports · Sep 9, 2002

That statute defines "investment account" as follows: "Investment account" means an account established by a contributor under this subtitle on behalf of a qualified designated beneficiary for the purpose of applying distributions … toward qualified higher education expenses at eligible educational institutions.

Cathey v. DEPT. OF HEALTH

422 Md. 597 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Oct 25, 2011

The definition of “resident” thus appears in COMAR 10.22.12.03.B(27), and in this case, the Department interpreted its own regulations to provide that “resident” is akin to the well-established concept of a “domicile.” … The post-judgment order clearly delineates when Petitioner is to be where, which in effect eliminates the danger of improper duplicate benefits.

Webster v. Larmore

268 Md. 153 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Feb 9, 1973

The rule of our cases is that urged on us by the caveatee: that while testimony tending to establish competency may relate to periods preceding or succeeding the execution of the will, testimony tending to establish incompetency … (who presumably has not qualified) should similarly be at the expense of the estate.

Patterson v. Mayor of Baltimore

127 Md. 233 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Dec 16, 1915

appeal, * * * and the persons appealing to the Baltimore City Court, as aforesaid, shall be secured in the right of a jury trial, and the said Court shall direct the Sheriff of Baltimore City to summon twelve or more persons qualified … The statute, we think should not be given this construction unless it is clearly shown by its language that such was the intention of the Legislatura The statute has been amended several times, one of the last amendments

Vito v. Grueff

453 Md. 88 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · May 22, 2017

Here, the settlor established an irrevocable trust for the benefit of his four adult children. … In addition to contending that Amendment V contravened Vito’s clearly stated intention, in her brief and at oral argument, Candace contended that Amendment V violated well-established Maryland law regarding the testamentary

Jackson v. Walsh

75 Md. 304 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Feb 4, 1892

to withdraw any part or all of said endowment of six •^thousand dollars, hereinbefore appropriated, or to repeal, vacate, and make void all and every part of the incorporation aforesaid, and all rights, privileges, and immunities … It has donated to the College large sums of' *313 money received by tbe State from tbe general government under Acts of Congress, -which made appropriations to the several States for the establishment of agricultural experiment

Nivens v. Tehum Care Services, Inc.

District Court, D. Maryland · Nov 13, 2023

The claims against Blevins and O’Neil are clearly time-barred. … 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

Burden v. Burden

179 Md. App. 348 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Apr 3, 2008

“Whether the Trial Court’s finding, by implication, that the Appellee’s paternity had not been established under the laws of South Dakota was clearly erroneous?” II. … In the case before us, clearly there was no fraud or material mistake of fact. Michael knew, beyond doubt, that he was not Malachi’s father when he signed the paternity affidavit.

LJ by and Through Darr v. Massinga

699 F. Supp. 508 · District Court, D. Maryland · Sep 27, 1988

While most of the remaining children do not qualify for CHP enrollment, up to 400 children eligible to participate in CHP are not enrolled. 2. … In the same opinion, the Fourth Circuit also affirmed this court’s ruling that the defendants were not entitled to qualified immunity as to plaintiffs’ claims for damages. 838 F.2d at 123-124 .

Tapestry, Inc. v. Factory Mut. Insurance

482 Md. 223 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Dec 15, 2022

,” see Leon Gordis, Epidemiology 26 (5th ed. 2014) (defining “herd immunity” as “the resistance of a group of people to an attack by a disease to which a large proportion of the members of the group are immune”), with no … Contamination qualifies as physical loss or damage only if it renders the subject property unusable or uninhabitable.”); Bel Air Auto, 534 F.

Bridges v. Nicely

304 Md. 1 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Sep 10, 1985

As we said in Dawson, supra, 257 Md. at 313 , 262 A.2d 729 , the adoption must be “clearly warranted.” Or, as we stated in Walker v. … Gardner, 221 Md. 280, 284 , 157 A.2d 273 (1960), adoption “shall not be granted over parental objection unless that course clearly is justified.” To the same effect, see Lippy v.

Springhill Lake Investors Ltd. Partnership v. Prince George's County

114 Md. App. 420 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Mar 5, 1997

’s refinance exemption — “the paying off of the $400,000.00 debt by a new mortgage qualified as a form of refinancing.” … The closing statement clearly shows a disbursement of $60,116,-422.75 to CIGNA. In our view, the closing documents suggest of no transaction other than a refinancing transaction.

Gordon v. Maryland Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services

District Court, D. Maryland · Nov 23, 2021

However, the complaint must allege sufficient facts to establish those elements.” Walters v. McMahen, 684 F.3d 435, 439 (4th Cir. 2012) (citation omitted). … The Eleventh Amendment bars suit against a state, state agents, and state instrumentalities absent congressional abrogation of that immunity or the state’s clear and unambiguous waiver of its immunity.

Pietruszewski v. State

245 Md. App. 292 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Apr 7, 2020

In addition, the State established that the hotel was located “just a couple blocks from” the restaurant where Ms. … When the second qualified juror is called, the defendant shall indicate first whether that qualified juror is challenged or accepted.

Continental Casualty Co. v. Mirabile

52 Md. App. 387 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Sep 7, 1982

The liability clearly does not extend to mere insults, indignities, threats, annoyances, petty oppressions, or other trivialities. … The co-employee may be immune from suit where both the tortfeasor and the victim are acting in the course of their employment. See Nelson v. Harding, 480 P.2d 851 (Colo. 1980).

Hughley v. Maryland-National Capital Park & Planning Commission

668 F. Supp. 469 · District Court, D. Maryland · Aug 13, 1987

The McDonnell Douglas Court stated that a prima facie case of discrimination may be established by showing: (i) that [plaintiff] belongs to a racial minority; (ii) that he applied and was qualified for a job for which the … Plaintiff Hughley established a prima facie case of discrimination. He is black, and therefore a minority.

Jessup v. Mayor of Baltimore

121 Md. 562 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Oct 29, 1913

When the formalities which are required by law and established practice for the very purpose of preserving the identity of an Act of the General Assembly appear of record, as in this case, to have been duly observed, the … Hot only must it be sealed with the great seal, and signed by the Governor, but it must be so signed in the presence of those officers of the two Houses who are best qualified to know whether the contents of the paper being

Chadderton v. M.A. Bongivonni, Inc.

101 Md. App. 472 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Sep 6, 1994

Desi), the reports would have qualified under the business records exception to the hearsay rule. … This is a matter clearly within the court’s discretion. The trial judge did not abuse that discretion. 5 .