Case law

Doe v. Alternative Medicine Maryland, LLC

455 Md. 377 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Aug 25, 2017

AMM pointed out that medical cannabis can be dispensed only by a qualifying physician to a qualifying patient. … AMM clearly has interests that are adverse to the Growers.

Burdette v. ROCKVILLE CRANE RENTAL, CORP.

130 Md. App. 193 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Feb 4, 2000

We recently have delineated Maryland’s “Boulevard Law”: Under Maryland law, traffic rights-of-way are well established and certain roads or highways are favored. … Johnson’s position on the favored road did not immunize him from being found negligent. We find no error. IV. Appellants also requested that the trial court give the jury MPJI 19:14, regarding last clear chance.

Certain-Teed Products Corp. v. Goslee Roofing & Sheet Metal, Inc.

26 Md. App. 452 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jun 2, 1975

This proposition is clearly incorrect in light of comment 1 to § 2-315 which provides as follows: “1. … The trial judge, apparently because Goslee had failed to sufficiently establish the amount incurred, did not allow the amount as damages. This finding was also not clearly erroneous.

In Re Search Warrants Issued on April 26, 2004

353 F. Supp. 2d 584 · District Court, D. Maryland · Dec 23, 2004

However, the Fourth Circuit did note that there is a “common law qualified right of access to the warrant papers ... committed to the sound discretion of the judicial officer who issued the warrant.” … In addressing a media request for sealed search warrant affidavits, the Fourth Circuit recognized in Goetz a “qualified right *590 of access to the warrant papers ... committed to the sound discretion of the judicial officer

Comptroller of Md. v. Atwood

Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jul 28, 2021

vehicles covered by the statute are exempt from the tax only if used primarily for the movement of passengers or freight in interstate commerce, where the stipulated facts established … He contends that the term “interstate commerce” “would clearly include any trips across state lines regardless of their underlying purpose.” Mr. Atwood cites to Gibbons v. Ogden, 22 U.S. 1 (1824), W.R.

Thompson v. Badgujar

District Court, D. Maryland · Aug 6, 2021

P. 34(a)(1)(A). 6 The discussion that follows does not address the Defendants’ various defenses of qualified immunity, governmental immunity, or public official immunity. … Connor clearly establishes the general proposition that use of force is contrary to the Fourth Amendment if it is excessive under objective standards of reasonableness.” Saucier v.

Crown Central Petroleum Corp. v. Kleppe

424 F. Supp. 744 · District Court, D. Maryland · Nov 24, 1976

Leases The leases themselves to which the plaintiff is a party as a lessee clearly contemplate the applicability of Executive Order 11246. … The Congressional intent has been clearly stated to the contrary. N.L.R.B. v. Sears, Roebuck and Company, 421 U.S. 132, 164-65 , 95 S.Ct. 1504 , 44 L.Ed.2d 29 (1975).

Warner v. Sprigg

62 Md. 14 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Mar 27, 1884

Two of the persons named as trustees and executors refused to qualify as executors and to accept the trusts of the will. The third one, Edward J. … In this deed they use many expressions, which show very clearly that it was their intention that he was to hold the legal title in trust for the grantors.

Blake v. Stump

10 L.R.A. 103 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Nov 14, 1890

The word “simply” was unnecessary, but qualified and explained as it was by those other instructions we have mentioned, we do not think that was sufficient entirely to condemn the instruction. … We are clearly of opinion that there was some evidence in support of the contention that Stump was acting for both Blake and Fowler, without the knowledge of Blake.

State Ethics Commission v. Antonetti

365 Md. 428 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Sep 11, 2001

Antonetti executed a supplemental pay authorization form for John in 1988 establishing an hourly pay rate of $6.25. … The record clearly shows that these individuals were compensated and did in fact benefit economically as a result of Respondent’s actions. 5.

Adams v. State

165 Md. App. 352 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Nov 3, 2005

Those findings of fact were not clearly erroneous and must, therefore, be accepted by us as the established truth of what happened in this case. (2) Assistant Public Defender Jane McGough The second witness called by the … Those findings were not clearly erroneous, and must, therefore, be accepted by us as the established truth of what happened in this case. (5) Transcript of March 13, 2002, Postponement Hearing In addition to calling four

Holden v. University System of Maryland

222 Md. App. 360 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Apr 3, 2015

Appellees moved to dismiss the amended complaint for failure to state a claim, asserting that appellant failed to allege facts upon which USM could be held liable, and asserted statutory immunity on behalf of Dr. … ppellant did not articulate a “clear” mandate of public policy because Title III does not expressly prohibit the use of Title III funds for student recruitment even thought [a]ppellees clearly

Prince George's Cty. v. Concerned Citizens

Court of Appeals of Maryland · Sep 1, 2023

Concerned Citizens has not established that CB-17 discriminates arbitrarily, either by providing examples of similarly situated properties that CB-17 treats differently or by establishing that its qualifying criteria are … Summary of Legislative History To summarize, the legislative record and various drafts of the Bill clearly establish the following.

Waddell v. Eastern Correctional Institution

District Court, D. Maryland · Sep 10, 2020

Exceptional circumstances include a litigant who “is barely able to read or write,” id. at 162, or clearly “has a colorable claim but lacks the capacity to present it,” Berry v. Gutierrez, 587 F. … failed to exhaust administrative remedies, that the Correctional Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity, and that Waddell has failed to state a plausible claim for relief.

Nissan Motor Corp. in U. S. A. v. Maryland Shipbuilding & Drydock Co.

544 F. Supp. 1104 · District Court, D. Maryland · Aug 3, 1982

Noting that there were no federal cases which considered the question of interspousal immunity or established a federal admiralty rule determining it, the Court *1111 posed the issue as “whether we should establish a federal … VI Smoke damage The evidence clearly establishes and defendant does not dispute the fact that smoke from vessels docked at piers located on defendant’s property is on occasion carried by the wind onto Nissan’s adjoining property

Frye v. Hayes

District Court, D. Maryland · Apr 22, 2025

“[A] court may take judicial notice of a document filed in another court not for the truth of the matters asserted in the other litigation, but rather to establish the fact of such litigation and related filings.” … The Petition Hayes filed was clearly a part of the judicial process and was directly related to Frye’s contact with the victim in the criminal matter. As such, Hayes is immune from suit for damages.

Watson v. Chemical Leaman Tank Lines, Inc.

260 F. Supp. 847 · District Court, D. Maryland · Nov 23, 1966

employee may maintain an action at law against a third party causing the injury. 2 Where certain prescribed conditions exist, a third party becomes a statutory employer, and under § 62 of Art. 101 is entitled to the same immunity … Furthermore, the record clearly shows that the agreement between Chemical and North American is one for performance of the services of carrying cement and not for the sale of cement.

Jones

District Court, D. Maryland · Feb 2, 2026

Maryland’s “common law qualified immunity in tort suits, for public officials performing discretionary acts, has no application in tort actions based upon alleged violations of state constitutional rights or tort actions … Governmental Immunity Finally, County Defendants contend the County is immune from suit by operation of governmental immunity. (ECF No. 29-1 at p. 12.)

Gottesman

District Court, D. Maryland · Mar 2, 2026

Qualified immunity to suit under § 1983 exists to “protect[] government officials ‘from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … Importantly, however, the qualified immunity “defense is not available[] . . .

Baltimore County Department of Education v. Henry A. Knott, Inc.

234 Md. 417 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Apr 14, 1964

The Court pointed out that to establish the limitation period earlier would be to deprive labor *425 and material people working on the $3,500 uncompleted items of any rights under the bond. … opinion states he found that final acceptance took place either on the date that Baker named in his letter, or “on December 1, 1961 in accordance with the Architect’s Certificate,” and “it [the architect’s certificate] clearly