Case law

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 .

Davis v. State

68 Md. App. 581 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Sep 9, 1986

That particular predicate for the operation of § 643B(b) was established. … (Doubt exists as to Mississippi because it is uncertain whether daytime housebreaking is a qualifying crime for the habitual offender’s statute in that state.)

Welsh v. Weinberger

407 F. Supp. 1043 · District Court, D. Maryland · Dec 18, 1975

Thus, plaintiff has not established his entitlement to benefits in that manner. … However, since those values are more stringent than those in the interim adjudicatory regulations which plaintiff was unable to meet, plaintiff clearly cannot qualify under that criterion.

Logan v. United States

851 F. Supp. 704 · District Court, D. Maryland · May 9, 1994

It was also established to the satisfaction of the *710 Magistrate Judge, who did not clearly err in so finding, that Mr. … A number of witnesses on both sides, well-qualified to opine on the issue, gave the Magistrate Judge the benefit of their opinions. In the end, he chose to accept the conclusion that the hunting sites were baited areas.

J.H. v. Prince George's Hospital Center

233 Md. App. 549 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jul 27, 2017

Vol.), Health-General Article (“Health-Gen.”), § 10-601 et seq. 2 Each ALJ concluded the evidence established that Appellants qualified for involuntary admission to the Hospital’s inpatient psychiatric unit in … The 1981 revisions required, among other things, that the record must demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence three additional elements to establish that a patient qualified for involuntary commitment.

F.D.R. Srour Partnership v. Montgomery County

179 Md. App. 109 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Mar 27, 2008

That clearly taxing jurisdictions have the right to change taxes on property.... … In our view, to qualify as “development,” it is not enough that the permit was one that would enable gross floor area to later be increased by further construction.

Curtis v. DPSCS

District Court, D. Maryland · Jun 14, 2021

In order to establish a claim under either of these statutes,19 “a plaintiff must prove: (1) that he has a disability; (2) that he is otherwise qualified for the . . . benefit in question; and (3) that he was excluded from … Therefore, in order to establish that he is disabled under both the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act, Plaintiff must establish that: “he has a physical or mental impairment; that this impairment implicates at least one major

Martin v. Maryland Department of Natural Resources

District Court, D. Maryland · Jan 29, 2025

As interpreted by the Supreme Court, the principle of sovereign immunity articulated in the Eleventh Amendment establishes that “an unconsenting State is immune from suits brought in federal courts by her own citizeng … Plaintiff argues that his race “was clearly a motivating factor” in the decision to terminate his employment. ECF 1, at 7 745.

Beyond Systems, Inc. v. Kraft Foods, Inc.

972 F. Supp. 2d 748 · District Court, D. Maryland · Aug 12, 2013

Second, to pursue a claim under a state statute, a party must establish that it qualifies as one who is eligible to sue under the state statute. … If a single individual with a router can qualify a service provider, the distinction would be largely meaningless. 13 *765 For the same reasons, BSI’s argument as to who qualifies as an ISP leads to patently unreasonable

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.

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.

National Mechanics' Bank v. National Bank

36 Md. 5 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · May 8, 1872

Haney, 4 Md., 511, that the declarations of an agent are not admissible to bind the principal under any circumstances until the agency is first clearly established, and the language of the Court in Atwell, vs. … They say, “to let the case go to the jury in such a form, was clearly to permit the agency to be established by the declarations of the agent.”

Kiser v. Eberly

200 Md. 242 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · May 14, 1952

A copy of the official survey from the land office establishes their exact boundaries and quantities of land. … So, here, the identity of the hotel site being fixed, the city and county records establish the boundaries and quantity. This contract then clearly identified the subject of it.

Louis v. Johnson

146 Md. 115 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jun 7, 1924

While described as a laborer in tbe testimony, be was qualified to serve as a chauffeur, and the actual service be rendered at times in that capacity, though limited to appointments made by the appellant’s wife, does not … A reversal in that case because of an objection wbicb appeared to have been virtually waived was a result wbicb it was clearly desirable to obviate.

General Insurance Co. of America v. Walter E. Campbell Co.

241 F. Supp. 3d 578 · District Court, D. Maryland · Mar 10, 2017

WECCO’s primary challenge to the applicability of this exception is Muse’s status as a qualified witness to those facts. WECCO complains, somewhat disingenuously, that she cannot be qualified as such because “Ms. … Muse is fully qualified as a witness through which the Loss Runs can be admitted under Rule 803(6).

Pacific Employers Insurance v. Eig

160 Md. App. 416 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Dec 29, 2004

The Pacific policy clearly stated that Pacific was required to pay those “damages” that Eig became legally obligated to pay as the result of qualifying “claims” against him. … Clearly, such notification to Eig from the National Trust and Giddins only can be interpreted as some expression of dissatisfaction with his services.

Oltman v. Maryland State Board of Physicians

182 Md. App. 65 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Oct 1, 2008

As detailed in Oltman I, Oltman’s federal convictions qualified as crimes of moral turpitude, meriting revocation of his PA certificate. … Rule 7-202 clearly contemplates what happened here, ie., that the Board may challenge a petitioner’s right to obtain judicial review of its decision via a “preliminary motion.”

Johns v. Bay State Abrasive Products Co.

89 F. Supp. 654 · District Court, D. Maryland · Mar 24, 1950

The Bay State Abrasive Products Company is a Massachusetts corporation which has never qualified or registered to do business in Maryland. … doing business by a foreign corporatioh in another State, concluded that a simple mechanical or quantitative test as to the activities of a foreign corporation should not mark the boundary line between subjection to and immunity

ATTORNEY GRIEV. COMM'N OF MARYLAND v. Mandel

316 Md. 197 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · May 26, 1989

William Lerner, a qualified expert in substance abuse and iatrogenic narcotic addiction, that “the drug dilaudid is one of the most potent prescription drugs known to medicine.” … Lerner’s testimony, claiming that it failed to establish the necessary causal connection because Dr. Lerner did not personally examine Mandel nor discuss his addiction with him.

Rock v. McHugh

819 F. Supp. 2d 456 · District Court, D. Maryland · May 26, 2011

To establish discrimination under the Rehabilitation Act, Plaintiff must demonstrate that he: (1) has a disability; (2) is otherwise qualified for the job in question; and (3) suffered an adverse employment action solely … In addition, because Plaintiff and Defendant do not dispute whether Plaintiff is an “otherwise qualified” individual, the court will also assume that Plaintiff is “otherwise qualified.”