Case law

Logue v. Patient First Corp.

246 F. Supp. 3d 1124 · District Court, D. Maryland · Mar 28, 2017

Defendants clearly do not consent, so the Court must address the question of whether “justice so requires” the granting of the request to file a second amended complaint. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). … The Act establishes the Health Care Alternative Dispute Resolution Office (“HCADRO”) in which a person alleging medical malpractice can file a claim and, additionally, establishes the procedure governing the arbitration process

Beall v. State Ex Rel. Jenkins

131 Md. 669 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Dec 5, 1917

From the establishment of the first Constitution of Maryland—and it might be said before that date —until the adoption of this Article its people had lived under a well recognized form of representative self-government. … There are exceptions, notably those embraced in the sixth section, which indicate clearly that it was not intended that the provisions of the Article should apply to all legislation.

Baltimore University v. Colton

64 L.R.A. 108 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Feb 19, 1904

it is conceded, been deprived zvithout notice. *636 Of course if one voluntarily becomes a member of an incorporated society or association whose by-laws provide for expulsion for specified causes the right of amotion is clearly … established in the corporate body and may be duly exercised in/the manner and for the purposes prescribed, (High on Ex.

Bennett v. State Department of Assessments and Taxation

171 Md. App. 197 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Oct 2, 2006

. ■ If so, it must be included in his net worth calculation, and he does not qualify for the HTC. If not, it is properly excluded from that calculation, and he does qualify for the HTC. … Therefore, before any claimant can obtain an exemption, it is encumbent [sic] upon him to show affirmatively that the alleged exemption has been clearly allowed by law.

Candella v. Subsequent Injury Fund

277 Md. 120 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Mar 2, 1976

The most significant fact, perhaps, is that appellant related the history to the psychiatrist knowing that it was merely for the purpose of qualifying him as a witness on her behalf. … Clearly, the statements on which the physician’s conclusions were based cannot withstand the close scrutiny of hearsay testimony mandated by our prior decisions.

Lightfoot v. Board of Trustees of Prince George's Community College

457 F. Supp. 135 · District Court, D. Maryland · Jul 28, 1978

Initially the vote of the Committee on plaintiff’s qualifications was 2 votes for qualified (1 black member, and 1 white member) and 3 votes not qualified (2 black members and 1 white member). Adm. 2(q). Mr. … On the other hand, when the job clearly requires a high degree of skill and the economic and human risks involved in hiring an unqualified applicant are great, the employer bears a correspondingly lighter burden to show that

Walton v. Davy

86 Md. App. 275 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Mar 1, 1991

The court determined that appellant clearly did not establish fraud and made the following findings: 1. … Clearly, Walter W.

Poynter v. Quirk

District Court, D. Maryland · Jul 17, 2024

If, however, an affirmative defense “clearly appears on the face of the complaint,” a defendant may raise the defense on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion. Andrews v. … Qualified Immunity The defendants’ qualified immunity defense is unavailing at this stage of the litigation.

Boland v. Boland

423 Md. 296 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Oct 31, 2011

In fact they are better qualified in this regard than are corporate directors in general. … [We] submit that just as a litigant can readily find an “independent, qualified and objective expert” to support any position, a competent director may also find an “independent, qualified, and competent business person”

Maryland Department of Health & Mental Hygiene v. Brown

177 Md. App. 440 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Nov 27, 2007

Bearing in mind that no participating state’s Medicaid program may establish more restrictive eligibility requirements than those set by federal law, we look to the Medicaid statute and related regulations that establish … Brown “clearly did not meet any of the three criteria that I’ve explained, the three levels, where I could give a level.

McLaughlin-Cox v. Maryland Parole Commission

200 Md. App. 115 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jul 11, 2011

Brewer, 408 U.S. 471, 482 , 92 S.Ct. 2593 , 33 L.Ed.2d 484 (1972), in which the Supreme Court held that a parolee has a “qualified” liberty interest in parole that cannot be deprived without due process. … The time has come to return to the due process principles we believe were correctly established and applied in Wolff [v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539 , 94 S.Ct. 2963 , 41 L.Ed.2d 935 (U.S.1974) ] and Meachum [v.

Addison v. State

188 Md. App. 165 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Oct 2, 2009

The State then moved to have Sassoon qualified as an expert in the field of domestic violence. … As a continuing objection is only effective as to questions clearly within the scope, the persistent objections to the testimony of Sassoon are clearly sepa *177 rate general objections, allowing for any ground to be pursued

Polakoff v. Turner

385 Md. 467 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Mar 11, 2005

The issue of what qualifies as “reasonable” will, as it does in all negligence cases, depend on the facts and circumstances of the case. … Boblitz, 296 Md. 242, 275 , 462 A.2d 506, 522 (1983) (abrogating interspousal immunity in negligence cases— decision applicable to the case before the court and causes of action accruing or discovered after the date of the

Young & Simon, Inc. v. Bernstein

486 F. Supp. 1012 · District Court, D. Maryland · Dec 21, 1979

Not being a federal question case, the qualifying language contained in the remainder of the second sentence of 28 U.S.C. § 1441 (b) has no application. … In the latter form the new word “such” appears, and it qualifies the word “action.”

Arrington v. Department of Human Resources

402 Md. 79 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Nov 8, 2007

Roll and Scholl involved criminal contempts—the refusal of two witnesses to testify before a grand jury, even though offered immunity against prosecution for what they might say. … Although the text of the Rule does not explicitly bar incarceration if the defendant is then unable to meet the purge, case law, confirmed by the Committee Note attached to the Rule, clearly does, and the Rule must be read

Wilson v. Board of Supervisors of Elections

273 Md. 296 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Dec 4, 1974

Wilson filed his suit August 16, 1974, in the Circuit Court of Baltimore City as “a resident, taxpayer and qualified voter of Baltimore City,” saying he was “interested in the economic well-being, culture and vitality of … A statute is presumed to be valid and one attacking its validity has the burden of affirmatively and clearly establishing its invalidity. Salisbury Beauty Schools v. St. Bd., 268 Md. 32, 48 , 300 A. 2d 367 (1973).

Veney v. State

251 Md. 182 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Oct 15, 1968

As heretofore indicated, the procedure used in this case was to first obtain a panel of jurors held to be qualified to serve. Upon the panel so established each side then exercised its peremptory challenges. … That case is clearly distinguishable from the present case. In that case the pre-trial proceedings were covered live from the court room and parts of the trial were also filmed. We regard Seidman v.

Kerrigan v. Magnum Entertainment, Inc.

804 F. Supp. 733 · District Court, D. Maryland · Aug 31, 1992

Williamson, 38 F.E.P. at 1336. 5 In the second of the cases, the Maryland Court of Appeals determined that art. 49B should not be construed to immunize small employers from suit. … established public policy of this State.

Hub Bel Air, Inc. v. Hirsch

203 Md. 637 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Oct 1, 1973

The court found that *643 this chain of title, together with testimony of a qualified surveyor, established paper title to the strip in dispute in the appellant, and it is not seriously disputed that there was evidence to … We cannot say that the trial court was clearly wrong in finding title by adverse possession in the defendants. Judgment affirmed, with costs.

Cook v. State

84 Md. App. 122 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Aug 30, 1990

The evidence adduced at trial was clearly sufficient to sustain appellants’ convictions on all counts. … They argue *134 that their mere presence at the scene is not sufficient to establish their constructive possession over the cocaine.