Case law

1986 Mercedes Benz 560 Ce Vin: WDBCA45DGA211147 v. State

334 Md. 264 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Mar 28, 1994

Clearly, therefore, neither party addressed the use of the Mercedes Benz as section 297(b)(4) would have required. … Corporal Leadbeter, qualified as an expert, opined that possession of the latter two items 13 was *281 consistent with the distribution of cocaine.

Kirstel v. State

13 Md. App. 482 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Dec 1, 1971

To this end administration staff and personnel of such an institution may demand of any person desiring to use or come upon the premises identification and evidence that he qualifies for use of the premises. … The act forbidden — not leaving after being requested — is precise, clearly expressed and delineated.

(2006)

91 Op. Att'y Gen. 49 · Maryland Attorney General Reports · Feb 23, 2006

It is a well-established rule of statutory construction that a statute should be read so that no word, clause, sentence or phrase is rendered superfluous or nugatory. State v. Glass, 386 Md. 401 (2005). … It is my view that this definition clearly includes MRI, CT scans and radiation therapy services.

Parker v. Allentown, Inc.

891 F. Supp. 2d 773 · District Court, D. Maryland · Sep 19, 2012

Consequently, “[j]ust because a witness may be qualified as an expert in one area, ‘does not ipso facto qualify him to testily as an expert in all related ar *785 eas.’ ” Id. (quoting Shreve v. … To establish that he is qualified to testify, Mr.

Cohran v. Mahoney

District Court, D. Maryland · Sep 29, 2021

When considering whether a claim-is frivolous, § 1915(e)(2) grants courts “the unusual power to pierce the veil of the complaint’s factual allegations and | dismiss those claims whose factual contentions are clearly … The Court explained the rationale for judicial immunity, id. at 553-54: Few doctrines were more solidly established at common law than the immunity of judges from liability for damages for acts committed within

Diehl v. State

294 Md. 466 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Oct 13, 1982

Diehl’s speech also cannot qualify as a loud and unseemly noise under the first proscription. … Although evidence indicates that Diehl uttered one swear word, the statute clearly states that not all such words are proscribed. Only words that also qualify as profane are prohibited.

In Re Eastern Transp. Co.

102 F. Supp. 913 · District Court, D. Maryland · Mar 11, 1952

Nor do we believe it is necessary to rest our decision upon Section 403 because, in our opinion, Section 409 by its language clearly covers the present situation and constitutes a prohibition against abandoning these barges … manner proposed, because this will result in a menace to' navigation, without being liable to the penalties for so doing provided by Section 411, the provisions of the Bankruptcy Act give to the trustee under this Section no immunity

Curtis v. State

Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Oct 24, 2023

Hockaday would qualify under that exception . . . . However, the identity of the assailant is inadmissible. … influence of the occurrence clearly produced a spontaneous and instinctive reaction on the part of the declarant . . .

Vodi

District Court, D. Maryland · Mar 31, 2026

“It is well established that the University is considered to be an arm of the State Government for the purposes of the sovereign immunity doctrine.” Magnetti, 402 Md. at 557; see also Md. … Rose, 192 F.3d 462, 472 (4th Cir. 1999) (collecting cases holding “that Title VII does not provide a remedy against individual defendants who do not qualify as ‘employers’”); Birkbeck v.

Moise v. McAllister

District Court, D. Maryland · Sep 22, 2022

6); (3) Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity (id. at 9); and (4) Moise has failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. … immunity, is not necessary.

President of Georgetown College v. Madden

505 F. Supp. 557 · District Court, D. Maryland · Sep 24, 1980

The section if conceived of as a grant of immunity, avoids these anomalies. … Other states have characterized such statutes as grants of immunity 29 . Immunity from suit is substantive law for choice of law purposes. See LaChance v.

Blackburn v. Beall

21 Md. 208 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Mar 11, 1864

The intimation, that the object of the testimony was to establish forgery or fraud, does not fake it out of the reason of the rule, on the contrary, th& *234 higher the crime or deeper the fraud, sought to be established, … The proposition is stated still more clearly in Wells & Miller, vs. Turner, 16 Md. Rep., 142 .

Kimble v. Bender

173 Md. 608 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jan 15, 1938

The language of the enactment clearly shows the intention of the Legislature that these public officials are to be paid their respective and fixed salaries. … So it presented no such conformity to established forms or *626 modes of governmental office as to induce acceptance and use by the public in a reasonable belief of its legality.

(2003)

88 Op. Att'y Gen. 120 · Maryland Attorney General Reports · Aug 29, 2003

Homeland Security Act of 2002 Section 304 of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 established certain liability protections in connection with authorized "countermeasures" against smallpox. … The voluntary vaccination of public safety personnel to enable State and local government agencies to prepare for and respond to a bioterrorist incident clearly benefits the employer of those workers.

Pegues v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.

63 F. Supp. 3d 539 · District Court, D. Maryland · Oct 30, 2014

Because the “shopkeeper’s privilege” to detain a person suspected of theft is an affirmative defense that Defendant must plead and prove—■ and not a qualified immunity from suit-and inasmuch as Plaintiff adequately has stated … And even if evidence of Pegues’s actual guilt were sufficient to establish that WalMart employees acted reasonably, a mere accusatory instrument such as the Citation is not such evidence.

Crowe v. CSX Transportation

242 Md. App. 311 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Aug 28, 2019

It clearly intended to extend the LHWCA’s coverage to protect additional workers. Northeast Marine Terminal, 432 U.S. at 251. … To qualify for coverage under the LHWCA, an employee must meet both the “status” and “situs” requirements of the statute. Mr.

DRD Pool Service, Inc. v. Freed

416 Md. 46 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Sep 24, 2010

First, this Court may strike down a decision that is, “clearly wrong and contrary to established principles.” Adams, 406 Md. at 259 , 958 A.2d at 307 (quoting Townsend v. … Unlike Townsend , there has been no evidence or persuasive arguments put forth that our decision in Murphy was clearly wrong or contrary to established principles.

Hans v. Franklin Square Hospital

29 Md. App. 329 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Dec 3, 1975

Often the facts which reveal professional negligence will not establish the requisite legal cause. … Whatever the merits of the application of res ipsa loquitur to the facts in this case, it is beyond our authority to decide contrary to clearly established law set forth by the Court of Appeals.

Mayor and City Council of Baltimore v. Dukes

248 Md. 63 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Dec 8, 1967

The statute therefore establishes a two-fold test to determine its *67 applicability to a municipal employee; he must be engaged in “extra-hazardous work” and must be a “workman employed for wages.” … Her one week’s training would hardly qualify her for professional status.

Maryland Green Party v. Maryland Board of Elections

377 Md. 127 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Sep 11, 2003

Second, a qualified voter who moves from one residence to another within the same election *142 district remains fully qualified. … The statutory scheme challenged in Jenness is clearly distinguishable from Maryland’s requirements for the nomination of minor political party candidates.