Case law

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.

Brooks v. United States

166 F. Supp. 2d 366 · District Court, D. Maryland · Apr 10, 2001

Brooks has not established an evidentiary dispute warranting a Fatico hearing. 2. … Teague, 489 U.S. at 311-14 , 109 S.Ct. 1060 . *372 Because the first exception clearly does not apply in this case, the sole question before the court is whether Apprendi qualifies under the second Teague exception.

Wilson v. State

363 Md. 333 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Mar 9, 2001

In order to establish a Brady violation, Petitioner must establish “(1) that the prosecutor suppressed or withheld evidence that is (2) favorable to the defense — either because it is exculpatory, provides a basis for mitigation … The hearing judge’s findings were not clearly erroneous. The actual terms of the plea agreements were never disclosed to Petitioner by the State either before or during the trial.

Aggarao v. Mitsui O.S.K. Lines, Ltd.

741 F. Supp. 2d 733 · District Court, D. Maryland · Sep 30, 2010

The Fourth Circuit has not established a rule for when courts should compel arbitration pursuant to the Convention. … Porter Bros., Inc., 276 Md. 1 , 344 A.2d 65, 70 (1975). 6 “A novation is never presumed; the party asserting it must establish clearly and satisfactorily that there was an intention, concurred in by all the parties, that

Fraidin v. State

85 Md. App. 231 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jan 11, 1991

In support of this, Fraidin, in his brief, makes the bold statement: “It has been established since Ivrey v. … Cardin’s opening statement that the issue that was discussed prior has been clearly opened.

Purnell v. Maryland

330 F. Supp. 2d 551 · District Court, D. Maryland · Mar 18, 2004

Aikens, 460 U.S. 711, 717, 103 S.Ct. 1478 , 75 L.Ed.2d 403 (1983) (stating that to establish that she was qualified for the position, the employee is not required to show that she was the most qualified applicant or as qualified … Purnell’s attempt to raise a discriminatory inference based upon the reclassification of Taylor, a Caucasian employee similarly situated to Purnell, clearly is insufficient.

Stahl v. Emery

147 Md. 123 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jan 15, 1925

These two- antithetical definitions clearly mark the line which must be followed in construing -the will now before the court. … There is nothing to he found in the four corners of the will which in any way defines, explains, interprets or qualifies the words “our children.”

Reiling v. Lacy

93 F. Supp. 462 · District Court, D. Maryland · Jul 11, 1950

Whitman College, 222 U.S. 334 , 32 S.Ct. 147 , 56 L.Ed. 225 , upon which plaintiff relies, is clearly distinguishable on its facts. … Harvey, 296 U.S. 404 , 56 S.Ct. 252 , 80 L.Ed. 299 , 102 A.L.R. 54 , the facts in which we believe are clearly distinguishable from those before us, we deem it appropriate to analyze that decision.

Venugopal v. Shire Laboratories

334 F. Supp. 2d 835 · District Court, D. Maryland · Aug 26, 2004

Ginski was more qualified than Venugopal. … “In a failure to promote case, the plaintiff must establish that she was the better qualified candidate for the position sought.” Evans, 80 F.3d at 960 (citing Gairola v. Virginia Dept. of Gen.

Dep't of Gen. Serv. v. CHERRY HILL S & G CO.

51 Md. App. 299 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Apr 7, 1982

When sufficient materials are not available from cuts to establish the required grading, the contractor shall supply the fill required.... b. … The State, in its appeal, also raises the issue of sovereign immunity.

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

Davis v. Swick

District Court, D. Maryland · Jan 4, 2022

ECF No. 29 at 4-7, Additionally, they assert they are entitled to qualified immunity! and that Davis fails to specify how each individual Defendant named in the complaint engaged in allegedly unlawful conduct. … In each of the controlled purchases Agents Swick, Durgin, ' Because this Court finds that the complaint does not state a claim upon which relief may be granted, Defendants’ claim to qualified immunity is not discussed

Richburg

District Court, D. Maryland · Mar 27, 2026

Eslick (the “Officer Defendants”) without prejudice based on a failure to properly serve and failure to allege facts sufficient to overcome the officers’ qualified immunity. Id. … The Officer Defendants The Officer Defendants argue that the proposed second amended complaint is futile as it still does not overcome qualified immunity. ECF No. 61 at 2.

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

McCullough v. Anne Arundel County, Maryland

District Court, D. Maryland · Feb 20, 2020

The LGTCA provides, in relevant part, that “[a] local government may not assert governmental or sovereign immunity fo avoid the duty to defend or indemnify an employee established in this subsection.” Md. … “The Fourth Circuit has held that pretrial detainees have a clearly established right to immediate medical care when they are visibly injured and in pain.” Xrei/, 2018 WL 6523883, at *11 (citing Ervin v.

Medlock v. Rumsfeld

336 F. Supp. 2d 452 · District Court, D. Maryland · Apr 4, 2003

C, D, they do not begin to establish that Plaintiff was more qualified for the Band 2 promotion than the four candidates who were selected. … This affidavit is clearly overdue.

Wright v. Weinberger

391 F. Supp. 390 · District Court, D. Maryland · Jan 17, 1975

The initial denial in Anderson was clearly unsupported by the medical evidenee; Anderson was under severe restrictions on physical activity. … In the instant case, the medical evidence indicates that restrictions on lifting were imposed upon plaintiff, sucli restrictions not clearly being inconsistent with a no-disability finding. 6 .

McGraw v. Board of Educ. of Montgomery County

952 F. Supp. 248 · District Court, D. Maryland · Jan 23, 1997

Furthermore, this ease clearly falls outside the exceptions to the exhaustion requirement. … Indeed, § 504 regulations expressly require that each recipient of federal funds (including the school system itself) establish a self-evaluation program, with grievance proceedings that are appealable directly to the federal

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.

Rodriguez v. Smithfield Packing Co., Inc.

545 F. Supp. 2d 508 · District Court, D. Maryland · Mar 14, 2008

There are important requirements that must be met in order to qualify for the protections of the Act. … Because Smithfield knew that Rodriguez was able to work on September 16, after missing fewer than three consecutive calendar days of work — information that clearly places her outside the definition of “serious health condition