Case law

Killen v. Houser

251 Md. 70 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Oct 9, 1968

But even had such concurrence been obtained, this would still have not relieved the trustee from responsibility because these investments do not qualify and were made by the trustee or accepted and held by the trustee, in … Clearly the asset the trustees received and accepted should have been cash in the amount of $28,000 rather than the promise of an individual to pay $28,000.

Wilson v. State

370 Md. 191 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Aug 5, 2002

But more succinctly ‘courts should not subsume the question of qualifying the [scientific] process ... under the question of qualifying the expert.’ People v. Law, 40 Cal.App.3d 69, 75 , 114 Cal.Rptr. 708, 711 (1974). … The evidence relating to Brandi’s death was admitted to establish the corpus delicti of the crime, as well as to establish petitioner as the criminal agent.

Baker-Proctor v. PNC Bank, National Association

District Court, D. Maryland · Feb 7, 2023

The place of injury here was clearly in Maryland, where all relevant events described in the complaint occurred. … See Piscatelli, 424 Md. at 306 (explaining that the plaintiff must establish “that the defendant made a defamatory statement” (emphasis added)); see also Harvey v.

Hughes v. Maryland Committee for Fair Representation

241 Md. 471 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Mar 2, 1966

Effective majority rule is, in my opinion, clearly established. Ill, IV and V As we have seen, the State may “legitimately desire to maintain the integrity of various political subdivisions.” … vis a vis a slow *511 growing and older district having proportionately more qualified voters.

Cities Service Co. v. Governor

290 Md. 553 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jul 17, 1981

Most retail mass merchandisers are ineligible under both qualifying dates. … Moreover, the Legislature in 1979 clearly intended to confer a benefit upon the only mass merchandiser which, at that time, was owned by a producer or refiner of petroleum products.

United States v. Donohue

574 F. Supp. 1269 · District Court, D. Maryland · May 11, 1983

The grand jury may not even qualify as a “small group.” … After the judge. has granted exemptions, the Clerk maintains the Qualified Jury Wheel. The plan establishes four terms of court in each 12 months.

Grebow v. Client Protection Fund

Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jun 29, 2022

In his view, the Fund “clearly premised its denial of [the] [c]laim on the mistaken conclusion that [he] was complicit in Sniffen’s scheme.” … He remonstrates that the Trustees were “clearly biased” and demonstrated this by characterizing Mr. Grebow as a “co-conspirator” with Mr. McCloskey, despite Mr.

Anderson v. Baltimore County, Maryland

District Court, D. Maryland · Mar 8, 2024

circumstance, that immunity also protects the state. … Whether Sholter or Wolferman were chemists qualified by the Maryland Department of Health is similarly irrelevant.

Avey v. State

9 Md. App. 227 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Mar 31, 1970

of such qualified electors . . . .’ … No principle of constitutional construction is better established than that a court will not pass upon such question unless it is clearly presented by the record.

Xu v. Mayor & City Cncl. of Balt

Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Mar 30, 2022

Xu clearly wanted a jury trial and had requested one in a writing filed with the court. She did not, however, fully understand what she needed to do or say to get it.9 If Ms. … You haven’t been qualified as an appraiser. So you can’t testify to value.

State v. Hardy

415 Md. 612 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Aug 27, 2010

Hardy’s statement qualified as a request to discharge his counsel. … Our cases establish clearly that “meaningful trial proceedings” have not begun before voir dire commences (at pre-trial hearings and at a defendant’s first appearance in court on the morning of his or her trial) -and that

Wikimedia Found. v. Nat'l Sec. Agency/Central Sec. Serv.

335 F. Supp. 3d 772 · District Court, D. Maryland · Aug 20, 2018

Here, (i) and (ii) are clearly not met. … Second, "the court must decide whether the information sought to be protected qualifies as privileged under the state secrets doctrine."

Concrete General, Inc. v. Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission

779 F. Supp. 370 · District Court, D. Maryland · Nov 25, 1991

Nevertheless, as the next section discusses, even assuming that Plaintiffs could clearly prove a factual predicate to establish past discrimination, the MPP is not sufficiently tailored to achieve that purpose, and thus the … The Court finds it significant that the MPP establishes no definitive criteria by which WSSC is to judge whether the program need continue.

United States v. Mahabir

831 F. Supp. 1253 · District Court, D. Maryland · Aug 31, 1993

Mahabir moved the Court to (i) immunize them or (ii) order the government to immunize them so that they could be compelled to testify. 3. … Johnson immunity or to require the government to immunize them is DENIED. The government may obtain a witness’ testimony despite a Fifth Amendment claim by offering the witness immunity. A defendant has no such power.

State v. Roshchin

446 Md. 128 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jan 26, 2016

Under this provision, MAA clearly has authority to regulate those who provide commercial transportation services at BWI, which is no doubt why it was cited in the notice. 24 See TR 5-408(a)(1) (MAA “may ... … Indeed, the statute has been construed to provide MAA with state action immunity under the federal antitrust laws in connection with its regulation of commercial taxicabs at BWI.

Neal-Williams v. Daramy

District Court, D. Maryland · Oct 16, 2024

immunity. … Conduct is not actionable under the Eighth Amendment unless it transgresses bright lines of clearly established pre-existing law. See Maciariello v.

2022 Legislative Districting

481 Md. 507 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Aug 31, 2022

Ripley, 352 Md. 754, 763 (1999) (“An absolute immunity for legislators, with respect to conduct and statements made in the course of legislative proceedings, is as venerable as judicial immunity, having been traced back … for their legislative acts but that a Governor should have only a qualified immunity for his or her legislative function of vetoing or approving legislation.”

United States v. Orme

851 F. Supp. 708 · District Court, D. Maryland · May 19, 1994

It was also established to the satisfaction of the *710 Magistrate Judge, who did not clearly err in so finding, that Mr. … A number of witnesses on both sides, well-qualified to opine on the issue, gave the Magistrate Judge the benefit of their opinions. In the end, he chose to accept the conclusion that the hunting sites were baited areas.

Mayor of Baltimore v. Boitnott

356 Md. 605 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Sep 23, 1999

County of Allegheny, Pa., 322 *615 U.S. 174, 64 S.Ct. 908 , 88 L.Ed. 1209 (1944) to be dispositive, the Court held that the government owned property titled in the University’s name was immune from taxation, explaining, “ … Under this section, the holders of certain leasehold interests are treated as owners of the property, even though clearly they are not.

Jernigan v. Chater

973 F. Supp. 534 · District Court, D. Maryland · Aug 7, 1997

does not meet the other qualifying grounds set forth in 20 C.F.R. § 404.204 (b)(2). … For this reason, and for the additional reason that the phrase "eligible for a DIB” is not clearly defined in the statute, the Court will rely on the regulatory language in resolving the disputed issues in this case. 2 .