Case law

Bogues

District Court, D. Maryland · Aug 25, 2026

Defendants do not meaningfully argue that they are immune from suit for injunctive relief. And such suits clearly may proceed. … But at the same time, Bogues provides no law, binding or persuasive, which establishes the same.

State Roads Commission of State Highway Administration v. Kamins

82 Md. App. 552 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · May 3, 1990

The State called Melville Peters, a qualified real estate appraisal expert. Peters actually made three appraisals of the property. … The State’s position is that Urquahart was not qualified to give an opinion regarding zoning and his testimony was neither competent nor admissible.

DiVivo v. Egger

601 F. Supp. 1259 · District Court, D. Maryland · Dec 28, 1984

.); but did not meet the standards subsequently established by the Supreme Court on June 30, 1983 in United States v. Baggot, 463 U.S. 476 , 103 S.Ct. 3164 , 77 L.Ed.2d 785 (1983), and United States v. … The threshold inquiry of whether a case is one of first impression is clearly intended to focus on the Supreme Court’s prior precedent (see Solem v.

Richardson v. Snow

340 F. Supp. 1261 · District Court, D. Maryland · Apr 5, 1972

not be liable in an action brought under the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1983 , unless he directly and personally participates in conduct under color of state law which deprives the plaintiff of rights, privileges, and immunities … In those cases, however, on the facts it was clear that there either was probable cause in the constitutional sense (which would make the distinction academic) or the defendant police officer clearly did not have reasonable

Singfield v. Smith

District Court, D. Maryland · Mar 19, 2021

Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, public officials who engage in unconstitutional conduct “may nevertheless be shielded from liability for civil damages if their actions did not violate clearly established … Because this constitutional right was clearly established by the relevant period in this case, Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity.

Comi v. State

26 Md. App. 511 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jun 3, 1975

Search Warrant Number One The affiant is a police officer eminently qualified by service in criminal investigation and extensive experience in *514 search and seizure. … As to 4016, however, the affidavit was clearly adequate.

Scott v. Comptroller of Treasury

105 Md. App. 215 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jun 5, 1995

The Fifteenth Amendment clearly ensures appellant’s right to vote in both federal and Maryland elections. We hold that *227 appellant has not been subjected to taxation without representation. … The Eighteenth Amendment establishing prohibition was repealed by the Twenty-First Amendment, but did survive a Constitutional challenge in the courts. .

Tofani v. State

297 Md. 165 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Sep 16, 1983

Neither [the reporter nor the source] is immune, on First Amendment grounds, from testifying against the other, before the grand jury or at a criminal trial. … Thus, Tofani’s *186 assertion that the trial court misread Branzburg and erred in not upholding a qualified First Amendment privilege is simply incorrect.

Erman v. State

49 Md. App. 605 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Sep 10, 1981

Katsus had received immunity from prosecution for any peijury which he may have committed before the grand jury. … App. 689 , 429 A.2d 554, 557 (1981): "They make it clear, however, that there is a heavy burden upon those who would abridge the First Amendment right to establish clearly upon the record a compelling need for such abridgement

Hamot v. Telos Corp.

185 Md. App. 352 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · May 6, 2009

Such authority arises in cases where the urgency of establishing a rule of future conduct in matters of important public concern is imperative and manifest .... … However, such immunity does not apply if a lawsuit is a sham both objectively and subjectively. Prof. Real Estate Investors, Inc. v.

Williams v. MORAN, ETC.

248 Md. 279 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Dec 12, 1967

Moran qualified as her Committee. On April 6, 1965 there was instituted by Mr. Moran the Bill of Complaint which gave rise to the decree below, from which this appeal was taken. … The tests applied in cases based on undue influence and lack of mental capacity are clearly set forth in Judge Horney’s opinion for the Court in Arbogast v. MacMillan, 221 Md. 516 , 158 A. 2d 97 (1960). Dr.

(2000)

85 Op. Att'y Gen. 284 · Maryland Attorney General Reports · Oct 16, 2000

situation, could potentially qualify for assistance from the Fund. … In our opinion, the Authority must clearly articulate the basis for its finding that makes its analysis transparent.

Layton v. Howard County Board of Appeals

399 Md. 36 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · May 9, 2007

First, it must be noted that Riverdale clearly did not concern a land use or zoning issue. The case involved a *62 statute pertaining to fire companies’ immunity from civil liability in tort actions. … The Circuit Court upheld the Board’s decision based upon a finding that the landowner had established a vested right.

Webster v. ACB Receivables Management, Inc.

15 F. Supp. 3d 619 · District Court, D. Maryland · Apr 22, 2014

Wolpoff & Abramson, 485 F.3d 226, 232 (4th Cir.2007) (stating that § 1692k(c) “offers a kind of qualified immunity to debt collectors”). … Webster, establishes that ACB’s violations of the FDCPA were not intentional.

Stanger v. Glenn L. Martin Co.

56 F. Supp. 163 · District Court, D. Maryland · Mar 24, 1944

or a physically separated branch establishment. … If the term “administrative” be defined as merely a lower form of “executive”, then all executives would qualify under the “administrative” definition and the term might well have been left out of the Act.

Kammer v. Young

73 Md. App. 565 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jan 13, 1988

A statement tending to expose the declarant to criminal liability and offered to exculpate the accused is not admissible unless corroborating circumstances clearly indicate the trustworthiness of the statement. *581 From … Driscoll’s inability to *587 sufficiently narrow the period in which the alleged questionable conduct occurred, clearly distinguishes this testimony from that in Staley .

LEGAL SERVICES CORP., ETC. v. Ehrlich

457 F. Supp. 1058 · District Court, D. Maryland · Jun 7, 1978

Shortly after it came into being, Legal Services developed a short-term plan to expand legal services, beginning in 1977 and established the following “[f]our priorities”: a. … Additionally, it is to be noted that there is little or no basis for implying a private cause of action under the guidelines established by the Supreme Court in Cort v.

Wolfe v. Anne Arundel County

135 Md. App. 1 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Sep 29, 2000

Its failure to do so and its subsequent conduct ... clearly establishes estoppel under Maryland law.... (Emphasis supplied). … We hold that the proceeding before the County Board of Appeals qualified, under Batson v.

Best v. State

79 Md. App. 241 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Apr 27, 1989

The other isomers, if it should become an issue in the case, would have to qualify under a. 3. as “chemically equivalent or identical with [L-cocaine].” Unit *266 ed States v. … The chemical equivalency that concerned the legislature, moreover, was clearly an equivalency with respect to the substance’s narcotic effect upon a user.

Fischbach v. Fischbach

187 Md. App. 61 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jul 7, 2009

material evidence exists in support of the trial court’s factual findings, those findings cannot be held to be clearly erroneous.’ ” Figgins v. … The ERISA provisions generally prevent the assignment or distribution of the proceeds of an ERISA qualified plan to third parties.