Case law

Dorsey v. Hogan

District Court, D. Maryland · Sep 26, 2022

immunity; and (8) Dorsey is not entitled to injunctive relief. … Indeed, the Eleventh Amendment bars suits for damages against a state in federal court unless the state has waived sovereign immunity or Congress has abrogated its immunity. See Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v.

Press

District Court, D. Maryland · Aug 6, 2026

Thus, Press seeks to remedy a past alleged violation that is not ongoing and fails to establish that an exception to Eleventh Amendment immunity applies. … But the Court should only deny leave to amend on the ground of futility when the proposed amendment is clearly insufficient on its face. Johnson v.

Kennerly v. Mayor of Baltimore

247 Md. 601 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Oct 12, 1967

Clearly, the appellants have shown no standing to appeal as aggrieved persons. Their claim that they had standing in the City Court and have standing here as taxpayers likewise must fail. … The City admitted only facts of record, meaning, we take it, facts established in the record before the Board.

United States v. Garmatz

445 F. Supp. 54 · District Court, D. Maryland · Dec 5, 1977

These allegations are clearly suffi *60 cient. Grunewald v. United States, supra, 353 U.S. at 397 , 77 S.Ct. 963 . … Dowdy, supra at 222 ; Comment, Brewster, Gravel and Legislative Immunity, 73 Col.L.Rev. 125, 146 (1973).

Silver v. Goldberger

231 Md. 1 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Feb 20, 1963

While a person may not be restrained from engaging in any business or vocation (useful to the community) which he is qualified to conduct or perform, the general rule is that restrictive covenants in a contract of employment … It is also apparent that the refusal of the chancellor to retry the points that had been previously tried and decided, was clearly not improper.

Polakoff v. Hampton

148 Md. App. 13 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Nov 7, 2002

after February 24, 1996; or *24 (ii) On or after February 24, 2001, an EBL greater than or equal to 20 g/dl as first documented by a test for EBL performed on or after February 24, 2001; and (2) An opportunity to make a qualified … (a) The Robinson/Leggette Appellees It is well-established Maryland law that, ordinarily, a declaratory judgment will not serve a useful purpose when the same issues to be resolved in the declaratory judgment action will

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

Maruti. Com v. Maruti Udyog Ltd.

447 F. Supp. 2d 494 · District Court, D. Maryland · Aug 15, 2006

A trademark, however, need not be federally registered in order to qualify for protection under the ACPA. … Maruti’s mark applies to its cars, which are goods, 19 and § 1127 clearly requires that the goods be “sold or transported in commerce.”

Green v. Baltimore City Board of School Commissioners

86 F. Supp. 3d 421 · District Court, D. Maryland · Jan 22, 2015

The System then terminated her coverage and through CO-NEXIS, a contractor, sent an “Election Form and Plan Alternatives Letter,” which established her date of coverage loss as March 31, 2013. … had violated its fiduciary duty as the plain *429 tiff continued to pay premiums in reliance on defendant’s communications that her ex-husband was eligible for coverage even though it was in possession of information that clearly

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).

Freedman v. Comcast Corp.

190 Md. App. 179 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jan 28, 2010

“The intention to waive must be clearly established and will not be inferred from equivocal acts or language.” Frank at 449, 450 A.2d 1304 (citing BarGale, 275 Md. at 644 , 343 A.2d 529 ). … In Lapides , the Supreme Court held that a state waives its Eleventh Amendment immunity when it removes a case from state court to federal court.

Anne Arundel Cty. v. Reeves

474 Md. 46 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jun 7, 2021

This case clearly does not involve fraud, and the jury expressly found that Officer Price did not act with actual malice, i.e. … Code Ann., Insurance § 5-201(j)(“Except for fraud, willful misconduct, or gross negligence, a qualified actuary is not liable for damages . . .”); Md.

Pistel v. Imperial Mutual Life Insurance

43 L.R.A. 219 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Dec 20, 1898

Now let us apply the law as thus established to the case before us. … But in this case the contract is sufficiently definite — the amount of the indebtedness is clearly stated and the only question in doubt was the times of payment and, as we have already said what the contract means in that

State v. M. Fox & Son

79 Md. 514 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jun 21, 1894

negligence, in respect of a contract, brought by parties with whom he has not contracted, by a stranger, by any one of the public at large who may be injured by such deceit or negligence,” although this statement is somewhat qualified … This is approved of in Cooley on Torts,481 (1st ed),where it is also said that the fraud would not only be morel censurable, but more clearly actionable, if that which is exposed to injury by the concealment is the health

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.

Albert S. v. Department of Health & Mental Hygiene

166 Md. App. 726 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Feb 1, 2006

This scheme clearly anticipates that a SRT team comprised of qualified individuals review the medical records of a person applying for [medical assistance]. *734 The medical records submitted to the local department by the … It is well established that a controversy generally is not justiciable if it has become moot. Stevenson v. Lanham, 127 Md.App. 597, 612 , 736 A.2d 363 (1999).

Robert B. v. State

193 Md. App. 620 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jul 8, 2010

It is firmly established as a civil aetion[.]” Id. (citing Howlett, v. … There is no contention that appellant would not qualify for expungement because of this provision. .

Brown v. Hovatter

516 F. Supp. 2d 547 · District Court, D. Maryland · Oct 17, 2007

The executor license may not be “renewed or reinstated” after six months, at which point the personal representative must “qualify and be licensed as a mortician.” … Not only is the law clearly anti-competitive, but it is also unique.

Carter v. Shoppers Food Warehouse MD Corp.

126 Md. App. 147 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Apr 13, 1999

Was the circuit court clearly erroneous in its finding that the facts were insufficient to allege that appellant had notice of the condition of the rubber mat? III. … In her argument that the court erred by excluding Sober, appellant first asserts that qualifying as an expert is not onerous and direct knowledge is not a requirement.

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.