Case law

Comptroller of the State v. Klein

215 Md. 427 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Sep 1, 1989

Nor am I willing to concede that such decisions have established no clear weight of' authority. … Applying the definition of “his” in the majority opinion, the decision in the Wyrick case, supra, was clearly right.

Floyd v. Mayor of Baltimore

179 Md. App. 394 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Mar 27, 2008

Appellees rely on Bylaw 2.12, which clearly provides for a quorum of nine. 24 They dispute appellant’s claim that the quorum of nine was established by “oversight,” noting that the City approved Bylaw 2.12, and the Board … Burnham was qualified ... as the representative of a property owner.”

Doe v. Lally

467 F. Supp. 1339 · District Court, D. Maryland · Mar 5, 1979

Bensinger, [ 522 F.2d 720 ] supra, recklessness under Section 1983 comprehends only an objective standard: whether the conduct is with “such disregard of the [plaintiff’s] clearly established constitutional rights that [the … Such cases must obviously be treated on an individual basis; however, with the duties now clearly spelled out, the likelihood of a good faith or immunity defense prevailing has substantially diminished.

Stevens v. City of Salisbury

240 Md. 556 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Dec 8, 1965

City of Baltimore, 206 Md. 89 , we think that certain portions of § 42 are immune from constitutional attack. *567 It is an accurate statement to say that every restriction upon the use and enjoyment of property is a "taking … A similar assumption is made in the decisions upon the Fourteenth Amendment. * * * When this seemingly absolute protection is found to be qualified by the police power, the natural tendency of human nature is to extend the

Palmer v. State

215 Md. 142 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Dec 19, 1957

He does assert, however, that the language immediately following is clearly inapplicable to him and that hence he is not a defective delinquent. … Edgar James Smith, Associate Director of the Patuxent Institution and a qualified psychiatrist, who had examined Palmer, which report is signed by Dr. Harold N.

White v. Bloomberg

345 F. Supp. 133 · District Court, D. Maryland · Jun 23, 1972

As such, it is an establishment existing independently of the executive branch of the United States 15 with the power “to sue and be sued in its official name.” 16 Further, the sovereign immunity of the United States has … While courts will not disturb an administrative interpretation or application of a regulation unless the same is clearly erroneous, Jno. McCall Coal Co. v.

Jump v. Barnes

139 Md. 101 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jun 28, 1921

. * * *” The appellant concedes the case to he one of qualified privilege, but insists that it should have been submitted to the jury. … Ham, 132 Md. 701 , Judge Constable delivered the opinions *110 and cited many authorities, stating the conclusions reached clearly and succinctly.

Wethington v. State

3 Md. App. 237 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Feb 23, 1968

Other like sexual crimes with other persons do not qualify for this purpose. Berger v. State, supra, at page 414; McCormick Evidence (1st Ed. 1954), § 157, pp. 328-29. See also Annotation, 77 A.L.R. 2d 841 . … The time and distance factors clearly negate any connection between the two crimes, and there was no attempt to show that the two criminal acts were uniquely similar in the manner and mode of their perpetration.

In Re Medimmune, Inc. Securities Litigation

873 F. Supp. 953 · District Court, D. Maryland · Jan 10, 1995

Plaintiffs contend that such statements were false and misleading because, given the flaws in the design of the study, the efficacy of the drug was not in fact established, something Defendants knew or should have known. … Moreover, the fact of the patient deaths was clearly disclosed by Defendant Mott in his statement of April 27, 1993. 12 .

BALTIMORE COUNTY BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF EMPLOYEES'RETIREMENT SYSTEM v. Comes

247 Md. 182 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jun 13, 1967

He was qualified as to age and length of service. The statute imposes no other qualifications. … is nothing in the context of a statute to attach a different meaning to the words so as to be capable of expressly embracing the case before the court, the court cannot extend the statute to that case, unless it falls so clearly

Davis v. Lockheed Martin Operations Support, Inc.

84 F. Supp. 2d 707 · District Court, D. Maryland · Feb 29, 2000

Clearly, this position relied upon group work involving sporadic “face time,” both internally among Lockheed staff and between the Lockheed and SSA staffs. … Lockheed has established it is entitled to this safe harbor as a matter of law.

Carven v. State Retirement & Pension System

416 Md. 389 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Oct 26, 2010

The Agency’s letter, in no uncertain terms, informed Commissioner Carven of the decision and just as clearly apprized him of his right to appeal “the action.” … ' Pension System, established on July 2, 1990; (8) the State Police Retirement System, established on July 1, 1949; (9) the Teachers' Pension System, established on January 1, 1980; (10) the Teachers’ Retirement System, established

Sweetwine v. State

288 Md. 199 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Aug 12, 1980

It would be a high price indeed for society to pay were every accused granted immunity from punishment because of any defect sufficient to constitute reversible error in the proceedings leading to conviction. … The Court clearly viewed the Green exception to the principle of United States v. Ball as limited to the situation where the merits of the greater offense were submitted to the jury for resolution.

Connors v. Government Employees Insurance

216 Md. App. 418 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Mar 25, 2014

Subsection (1) clearly states that it is applicable to “bodily injury sustained by one person as the result of one accident.” … The “subject to” language in the GEICO policy appears as a qualifying clause within subsection (2), located in between two commas.

Saulsbury v. Denton National Bank

25 Md. App. 669 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Apr 10, 1975

The factual situation in the Estricher case, furthermore, makes it clearly distinguishable from the one at bar. … Appellant relies upon the clearly established rule of law to the effect that a trustee who has been adjudged guilty of misconduct cannot charge the expenses of the defense of the suit to the trust fund. . . .

Diggs v. Housing Authority of the City of Frederick

67 F. Supp. 2d 522 · District Court, D. Maryland · Jul 15, 1999

Section 1983 imposes civil liability on anyone who, under color of state law, deprives a person “of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws.” … This they have clearly done.

Davis

District Court, D. Maryland · Jul 21, 2026

“It has been observed that ‘merely private conduct, no matter how discriminatory or wrongful[,]’ fails to qualify as state action.” Philips v. Pitt Cnty. … “[J]udicial immunity is an immunity from suit, not just from ultimate assessment of damages.” Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 11 (1991).

Anderson v. State

420 Md. 554 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jul 13, 2011

It’s a little unclear of the last assault, so, I mean, it clearly seems to me that it does related to diagnosis and treatment. … The report was not admissible to establish that Brittany’s statements to Dr. Boos qualified under Md.

Kurstin v. Bromberg Rosenthal, LLP

191 Md. App. 124 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Mar 1, 2010

Kurstin clearly breached the settlement agreement and the fact that Mr. … In re Franklin P., 366 Md. at 327 , 783 A.2d 673 , clearly established that the four requirements of the collateral order doctrine are “conjunctive in nature” and that “each of the four elements must be met.”

Butler v. State

19 Md. App. 601 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jan 4, 1974

We find some of the cases cited by appellant are clearly distinguishable on their facts and some, indeed, to support this warrant’s validity. … The record shows that the evidence of the witness offered at the hearing on the motion, simply does not qualify as “newly discovered.”