Case law

Simko, Inc. v. Graymar Co.

55 Md. App. 561 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Sep 9, 1983

In order to establish duress, there must be a wrongful act which deprives an individual of the exercise of his free will. Eckstein v. Eckstein, 38 Md. App. 506, 512 , 379 A.2d 757 (1978). … Judge Kaplan’s findings regarding the 1974 letter are not clearly erroneous. Md. Rule 1086. 4.

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.

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

Montgomery County v. Maryland Economic Development Corp.

204 Md. App. 282 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Mar 30, 2012

Further evidence established by the [County] was that [the County] had not, by law, created an exemption as set forth in Sections 112-116, supra. … On the contrary, in case of doubt as to the legislative intention, the presumption is in favor of the taxing power and the burden is on the claimant to establish clearly his right to exemption by bringing himself 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.

Everhart v. State

274 Md. 459 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Apr 14, 1975

Although in Calandra the respondent had been subjected to an unconstitutional search and seizure, he was before a grand jury as a witness, under an offer of a grant of immunity, and even though the Court held that as such … Varón, Searches, Seizures and Immunities, at 591 (2d ed. 1974).

Wolfe v. Anne Arundel County

374 Md. 20 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Apr 8, 2003

Article 2 §§ 5-101 et seq. of the Anne Arundel County Code establish the County’s “Self-Insurance Fund,” provide for an annual appropriation to the Fund, and establish a “Self-Insurance Fund Committee” to review and approve … Wolfe also acknowledges “that Ziegler did not qualify as an ‘Insured’ as defined” in paragraph one of the self-insurance regulations (id. at 22).

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.

Sulton v. Baltimore County

District Court, D. Maryland · Mar 12, 2021

To the extent it eventually proves necessary for Plaintiffs to rely on subsequent incidents to establish a “custom,” they will have an uphill battle in establishing that the occurrence of this particular situation … Once those three conditions are met, “the public official enjoys a qualified immunity.” Thomas, 113 Md. App. at 452.

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

Rubin v. Gee

128 F. Supp. 2d 848 · District Court, D. Maryland · Feb 7, 2001

It was an objectively unreasonable application of clearly established Supreme Court precedent regarding Rubin’s right to conflict-free counsel. … Again, the right to conflict-free counsel is clearly established Supreme Court law.

Bryant v. State

163 Md. App. 451 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jun 1, 2005

Moreover, he asserts: “This error precluded Appellant from presenting any defense and reversal is clearly warranted.” … Moreover, he contends that “the factual predicate” for the testimony was established “in the State’s own case.”

Buckley v. Airshield Corp.

116 F. Supp. 2d 658 · District Court, D. Maryland · Oct 13, 2000

The expert’s testimony was based upon the assumption that the plaintiff did not qualify for the protections of the Jones Act. Id. at 1355 . … Such admissions qualify as substantive evidence of the fact stated therein. Fed.R.Evid. 801(d)(2).

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.)

Murray v. Curlett

228 Md. 239 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Apr 6, 1962

True, it is a case involving the separation of church and state, but we think it is clearly distinguishable from the instant case. … In that case the Court was concerned with the compulsion which required a non-believer to profess a belief in God in order to qualify for public office.

State Ex Rel. Parr v. Board of County Commissioners

207 Md. 91 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Apr 20, 1955

No governmental *100 immunity is claimed by any of the parties here. … Turney, 177 Md. 297 , 9 A. 2d 561 , in qualifying the duty to keep public streets and highways in a reasonably safe condition, at pages 308 and 309: “But in Hagerstown v.

Henderson v. State

13 Md. App. 384 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Nov 15, 1971

State, 103 Md. 17 , adopted this rule of evidence but qualified it by stating at 103 Md. 20 , ‘a foundation must first be laid, by proof, sufficient in the opinion of the judge, to establish, prima facie, the fact of conspiracy … The testimony of an accomplice is clearly admissible to prove a conspiracy, Foster v.