Case law

Saul v. State

6 Md. App. 540 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Apr 22, 1969

The communication to the jury was clearly as to the law on responsibility for criminal conduct and thus was an instruction. … The lower court, in a proper exercise of its discretion, found that he was qualified as an expert psychologist.

Hartford Fire Insurance v. Annapolis Bay Charters, Inc.

69 F. Supp. 2d 756 · District Court, D. Maryland · Oct 25, 1999

The parties clearly intended this language to address the use of the physical plant at 7310 Edgewood Road. … The Court holds, however, that this bad faith claim does not qualify as an affirmative defense under Federal Rule 8(c).

Maryland Attorney General Opinion 99OAG171

Maryland Attorney General Reports · Dec 5, 2014

After the bidders are qualified, however, the P3 statute specifically authorizes more extensive dialogue between the agency and qualified bidders: (2) After a bidder is qualified and at any time before … From this standpoint, a P3 would seem to qualify as procurement.

Mayers v. Washington Adventist Hospital

131 F. Supp. 2d 743 · District Court, D. Maryland · Feb 27, 2001

Therefore, as a preliminary matter, Plain *749 tiff must advance a qualifying disability that would entitle her to the ADA’s protections. … Defendants’ employment policy clearly stated that absenteeism in excess of 3% was considered excessive.

Evening News Co. v. Bowie

154 Md. 604 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Apr 4, 1928

In some jurisdictions it is held that when the justification is not fully established the circumstances may be considered in mitigation of damages.” … If Judge Moss had made the charge or hint of corruption, the appellant would have been protected by its qualified privilege.

Snowden v. Anne Arundel County

295 Md. 429 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Feb 23, 1983

the reasons which prompted it if the *433 language of § 5 (S) of Art. 25A were not to be construed as a broad grant of power to legislate on matters not specifically enumerated in Art. 25A and the language of that section clearly … Chillum-Adelphi, 275 Md. 374 , 340 A.2d 265 (1975), and waive sovereign immunity, Bradshaw v. Prince George’s County, 284 Md. 294 , 396 A.2d 255 (1979).

Attorney Grievance Commission v. Ucheomumu

450 Md. 675 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Dec 15, 2016

The agent wanted to interview Jackson, but [R]espondent, on Jackson’s behalf, requested transactional immunity from federal prosecution. … Clearly, as of June 6, 2011, [R]espondent knew that Jackson once again was under federal criminal investigation for fraud.

Peoples Life Insurance v. Medairy

255 Md. 534 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Nov 11, 1969

After describing in detail the various entries made by him, he testified over objection that, in his opinion, the applicant “was insurable,” but immediately qualified his answer as follows: “But I would like to qualify that … She did not purport to qualify as an expert witness in any regard.

Marquis v. Marquis

175 Md. App. 734 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Sep 12, 2007

The court further ordered that it “shall retain jurisdiction in this matter for the purposes of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order [ (‘QDRO’) ] and/or a Qualifying Retirement Order[.]” … Wife’s expert witness, Wendy Widmann, was qualified as an expert in the area of “Qualified Domestic Relations Orders including those orders dealing with the division of military benefits under Maryland law.”

Johnson v. PNC Bank

District Court, D. Maryland · Mar 27, 2020

“‘An absolute privilege is distinguished from a qualified privilege in that the former provides immunity regardless of the purpose or motive of the defendant, or the reasonableness of his conduct[.]’” Smith v. … In sum, given that PNC is entitled to qualified immunity and the Complaint does not adequately allege that PNC acted with malice, Count II warrants dismissal, without prejudice. IV.

Sunbeam Corp. v. MacMillan

110 F. Supp. 836 · District Court, D. Maryland · Feb 27, 1953

But whether the defendant made deliveries to Klein in Maryland or in Delaware did not clearly appear on the evidence, as I recall it. … The fact that a state authorizes the price fixing does not, of course, give immunity to the scheme, absent approval by Congress.”

Pennsylvania Railroad v. State Ex Rel. Brewer

188 Md. 646 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jun 11, 1947

Moreover, the rules, taken together seem clearly designed to afford protection, in the shape of a flagman, against the danger from other trains or engines as well as from switching movements. … Where an oral charge is given, we have indicated that qualifying language in one portion of the charge may be taken to avoid the possibly misleading effect of other portions. Mitchell v.

B. Elliott (Canada) Ltd. v. John T. Clark & Son of Maryland, Inc.

542 F. Supp. 1367 · District Court, D. Maryland · Jul 13, 1982

Moreover, the facts clearly belie the notion that Clark was acting as anything other than Farrell’s agent. … The burden of establishing such negligence being on the shipper or consignee.

Worthington v. State

56 L.R.A. 353 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jan 16, 1901

Indeed, it is this comparative immunity from danger to the woman which has doubtless led to the great increase of the crime to the establishment of a class of educated professional abortionists, and to the enactment of the … Any expressed or clearly visible hope of recovery will render the declaration inadmissible. But the declarant’s own belief at the time is the criterion of admissibility. 1st Greenleaf's Ev., sec. 158.

Board of County Commissioners v. Dorman

187 Md. App. 443 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Aug 28, 2009

But whether a duty exists is not legitimately established by calling an expert witness to the stand, no mater how qualified that expert might be. … The Coates Court explained: *469 We do not wish, or intend, to establish a law that provides an absolute immunity for utility companies and gives them no incentive to use due care in the placement of their poles.

Baltimore Gas & Electric Co. v. Flippo

112 Md. App. 75 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Nov 4, 1996

Proving a case of contributory negligence, however, would not necessarily establish an assumption of risk defense. … Rees’s comments at the meeting did not constitute evidence of “Subsequent Remedial Measures” within the meaning of Rule 5^407 was not clearly erroneous.

Hallock v. Key Federal Savings Bank (In re Silver Oak Homes, Ltd.)

169 B.R. 349 · District Court, D. Maryland · Jul 5, 1994

“It is clearly established that where legal counsel’s ‘failure to act was the result either of a failure to understand the law, or of one of those careless omissions to which everyone is indeed subject,’ no exceptional circumstances … Thus, under Inwood, appellants’ notice of appeal in the within case does not qualify as a motion for extension of time. Appellants also rely on Pioneer Investment Services Co. v. Brunswick Associates Ltd.

Weathersbee v. Baltimore City Fire Department

970 F. Supp. 2d 418 · District Court, D. Maryland · Sep 10, 2013

An individual person can only be liable under Title VII if that person qualifies as an “employer” within the meaning of the statute. See Lissau v. … to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws” of the United States.

United States v. Wampler

10 F. Supp. 609 · District Court, D. Maryland · Apr 24, 1935

It will be noted that neither section expressly 'provides for imprisonment for nonpayment of fine but it is clearly implied that this is authorized and it has been uniformly so held. Ex parte Jackson, 96 U. … This has been the long established- practice, and was followed in this particular case.

Portillo-Osorto

District Court, D. Maryland · Feb 10, 2026

immunity. … Daniel’s conduct was objectively reasonable for qualified immunity purposes, because the application did in fact contain sufficient evidence constituting probable cause and Det.