Case law

Caire v. Conifer Value Based Care, LLC

982 F. Supp. 2d 582 · District Court, D. Maryland · Nov 8, 2013

However, InforMed is not clearly bound in this case. … Thus, the employer’s mere knowledge of his disability is inadequate by itself to establish the required causal connection for termination more than a year later. See Sharma v. Howard Cnty., No.

HON. BERNSTEIN v. State

422 Md. 36 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Sep 22, 2011

The language of Article IV, § 5, however, proves that to be an inaccurate conclusion. *54 Article IV, § 5, which addresses the appointment of circuit court judges, after establishing that only “duly qualified” persons may … Intent Even if the text of the Article IV, § 3, considered in the context of the constitutional scheme established by Article IV, were ambiguous, Judge Bernstein’s construction of the section conflicts with the clearly expressed

Williams v. Morgan State University

District Court, D. Maryland · Jul 26, 2021

Courts in Maryland apply a two-part test to determine whether sovereign immunity applies in a specific case: “(1) whether the entity asserting immunity qualifies for its protection; and, if so, (2) whether the legislature … The terms of § 12-104(a)(1) are clearly limited to tort actions. Additionally, § 12-104 is entitled, “Waiver of State tort immunity.” Neither of Ms.

BD. OF EDUC. OF BALTIMORE CTY. v. Ballard

67 Md. App. 235 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Apr 8, 1986

conditions that will attract and hold for all positions the highest qualified personnel who will devote themselves to the education and welfare of students. … The trial court, on the other hand, did, finding that “[t]he County Board directive in establishing personnel policy and procedure states that the purpose of these regulations is to: [Establish conditions that will attract

Kendall v. Housing Authority

196 Md. 370 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Oct 31, 2001

But in each instance the court clearly recognized that the claimants were in fact dependent. … Unless this finding was clearly erroneous we are not at liberty to disturb it. *377 We think it was clearly supported by the testimony.

Vance v. Vance

286 Md. 490 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jan 9, 1980

Vance’s negligent misrepresentation of his marital status in 1956 was established to the jury’s satisfaction. … We have recognized that a medical witness is ordinarily the only witness qualified to diagnose a physical ailment. Galusca v. Dodd, 189 Md. 666, 668-69 , 57 A.2d 313 (1948).

McMahon v. Consistory of St. Paul's Reformed Church

196 Md. 125 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Oct 5, 1950

Appellants contend, inter alia, that: the Consistory’s estate in remainder is a determinable, base or qualified fee simple, defeasible upon the Consistory ceasing to apply the income to the salary of the minister or pastor … In the circumstances the Consistory could not sell the property without a judicial decree establishing their title and removing the cloud cast upon it by appellants’ claims.

Conaway v. Deane

401 Md. 219 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Sep 18, 2007

Nor does Lawrence establish as deeply rooted the right to same-sex marriage. … Kraemer, 334 U.S. 1 , 68 S.Ct. 836 , 92 L.Ed. 1161 (1948), clearly are distinguishable from the present case.

Leser v. Board of Registry

139 Md. 46 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jun 28, 1921

But in this, case it does clearly appear that the objection to the registrar tion of the applicants was. brought directly to the attention of the board and that they formally acted on it. … But whilst it may apply old and long established principles to new uses, it cannot make new law. Ebr can it do what is in effect the same thing, — modify, amend or repeal existing law.

Bank of Westminster v. Whyte

3 Md. Ch. 508 · High Court of Chancery of Maryland · Mar 15, 1850

The general rule is too firmly established to be questioned, that no matter how absolute a conveyance may be on its face, if the intention is to take a security for a subsisting debt, or for money lent, the transaction will … Bank, in the negotiation with Suter, from which it could be fairly inferred that the object was to take a security for money loaned, or to be loaned, it would fall within the general rule, and the transfer could not be qualified

State v. Baltimore Transit Co.

197 Md. 528 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Apr 12, 1951

These, from the point of view of the law, were the bounds of her immunity, with perhaps some rare exceptions, survivals for the most part of ancient forms of liability, where conduct is held to be at the peril of the actor … directly from defendant’s negligent act or omission, and resulting in some clearly apparent and substantial physical injury as manifested by an external condition or by symptoms clearly indicative of a resultant pathological

Jones v. State

138 Md. App. 12 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Apr 5, 2001

The evidence was clearly sufficient to sustain appellant’s convictions. *19 II. … Rather, it concerns the manner in which states are required to establish the existence of bias. *26 Almendarez-Torres v.

In re Ft. Howard Dev., LLC

593 B.R. 427 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Maryland · Oct 31, 2018

a case-by-case basis when seeking to establish "manifest injustice". … The facts of this case are clearly distinguishable from Mintec .

Chapman v. State

331 Md. 448 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jul 30, 1993

Clearly, not every alteration of the common law scheme regarding the admissibility of hearsay will violate the Confrontation Clause. … Article 27, § 142(c) does not qualify as a “firmly rooted” hearsay exception. As the Supreme Court has noted, the codification of a hearsay exception does not alone qualify it for a presumption of reliability.

George v. State of Maryland Department of Publice Safety and Correctional Services

District Court, D. Maryland · Jan 28, 2021

The burden of establishing the court’s subject matter jurisdiction rests with the plaintiff. Evans v. BF. Perkins Co., 166 F.3d 642, 647 (4th Cir. 1999). … Title I of the ADA prohibits an employer from “discriminat[ing] against a qualified individual on the basis of disability in regard to job application procedures, the hiring, advancement, or discharge of employees, employee

Thompson v. Paul C. Thompson & Sons

258 Md. 391 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jun 4, 1970

The court below found that Dana was not an employee of the Partnership on the day of the accident, and we cannot disturb this conclusion of fact unless it was clearly erroneous, Rule 886 a. … He was also an unpaid director and the holder of one qualifying share of the lumber company.

Comptroller of the Treasury v. Jalali

235 Md. App. 369 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jan 31, 2018

INTERNAL REVENUE CODE – NATURE AND EXISTENCE OF DEBT – To establish whether a bad debt qualifies for a bad debt deduction under 26 U.S.C. § 166(a), a taxpayer must prove a genuine intention to create debt, with reasonable … Tax Court has further narrowed Golsen’s application only to those cases “where a reversal would appear inevitable, due to the clearly established position of the [federal] Court of Appeals to which an appeal would lie.”

Bayne v. State

98 Md. App. 149 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Nov 3, 1993

Was the evidence insufficient to establish appellant’s guilt of second degree rape? 2. … Or please clearly define, again, 2nd degree rape.

The City of Norfolk

13 F. Supp. 511 · District Court, D. Maryland · Feb 3, 1936

(C.C.A.2) 77 F.(2d) 304 , where, however, the distinction between The Majestic and a case such as we have here is clearly pointed out by Circuit Judge Learned Hand. … True, once the doctrine is established that the passenger, by accepting such a contract of carriage, undertakes to abide by its terms, nice distinctions are sure to arise unless he is charged with all that appears at least

Silberman v. Jacobs & Silberman

259 Md. 1 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Sep 1, 1970

Whiteley, 98 Md. 430 , 56 A. 823 (1904) but, in our opinion, that case is clearly distinguishable from the present case. … Carter, 132 Md. 577 , 104 A. 530 (1918) — whereas the Act of 1969, Ch. 3 is clearly intended to be retroactive.