Case law

State v. Harding

196 Md. App. 384 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Dec 10, 2010

I mean, all that Ofori says very clearly — and that’s why I asked Mr. … The facts had clearly established probable cause to arrest Schmerber for driving under the influence. A search incident would routinely follow.

Brown v. Baltimore County Maryland

District Court, D. Maryland · Jan 6, 2025

Governmental immunity, 2. Qualified immunity, 3. … Rule 8(b) is that a defendant’s pleading should apprise the opponent of those allegations in the complaint that stand admitted and will not be in issue at trial and those that are contested and will require proof to be established

Mentch v. Eastern Savings Bank, FSB

949 F. Supp. 1236 · District Court, D. Maryland · Jan 8, 1997

If plaintiff establishes a prima facie ease, then at the second step of the McDonnell Douglas proof scheme, ESB must undermine the inference of discrimination arising from the establishment of a prima facie case. … Under Alvarado’s test for establishing a discriminatory failure to promote, Menteh has not come close to establishing that “[s]he was rejected for the position in favor of someone not a member of the protected group, under

Lennox v. Mull

89 Md. App. 555 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Dec 4, 1991

Clearly, the order in question does not constitute a final judgment. The case is very much alive in Allegany County. Nor, in our view, does it qualify as an appealable collateral order. … Unfortunately, that has been the result in this case because of this appeal, but we do not desire to establish a rule that will allow it to happen in the future.

Parker Hannifin Corp. v. Ceres Marine Terminals, Inc.

935 F. Supp. 632 · District Court, D. Maryland · Mar 12, 1996

LEGAL STANDARD It is well established that summary judgment is proper if the evidence before the court, consisting of the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions of record, establishes that there … Clause 5(2) of ACL’s bill of lading, which comes under the heading of “Certain Rights *635 and Immunities of the Carrier and Other Persons,” states, in part, as follows: The Merchant undertakes that no claim or allegation

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.

Kramer v. Levitt

79 Md. App. 575 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jun 8, 1989

so much of it as is true and deny or qualify the remainder. … Thus, that older view is now regarded as “clearly untenable” and the privilege recognized under Rule 36. (Footnotes omitted.) 8 C. Wright & A.

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.”

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.

Andrews v. Andrews

242 Md. 143 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Apr 1, 1966

He said he did not think the doctor was qualified to testify as to what Dr. … The actual relationship of the father and sons is clearly relevant in a hypothetical question as to how various factors may be expected to affect that relationship.

Medical Mutual Liability Insurance Society v. Goldstein

388 Md. 299 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Aug 9, 2005

September 23, 1999 is ESTABLISHED to be the Absolute Final Bar date in this liquidation proceeding. 4. … It is a four-part definition that places limitations on what qualifies as a “covered claim” pursuant to the statute.

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.

Taylor v. State

Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jan 27, 2016

The Supreme Court, however, has clearly established that unsworn statements may be testimonial. … Just as the task of interpretation is not uniquely immune to human error, so too is it -35- not uniquely immune to human suggestion or manipulation.

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.

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 and City Council of Baltimore v. Browner

866 F. Supp. 249 · District Court, D. Maryland · Oct 7, 1994

This language, the plaintiff contends, clearly demonstrates that Congress intended to confer contract rights upon grantees. … As suggested, EPA’s use of cut-off dates is clearly within the relevant regulato *253 ry framework.

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 .

Grimstead v. Brockington

417 Md. 332 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Dec 17, 2010

The juror’s doctor had written to the judge, explaining that, in preparation for the trip to China, the juror was required to get immunization shots the following day. … Maryland Rule 8-401(b) establishes the proper procedure for substitution before the appellate courts: “(b) Substitution. The proper person may be substituted for a party on appeal in accordance with Rule 2-241.”

Cerrato-Molina v. State

223 Md. App. 329 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jun 1, 2015

Proximity could not be more clearly established." - 10 - 11 Md. App. at 518. (Emphasis supplied). In Johnson v. State, 142 Md. … The inference, once qualified, is not an evidentiary second-class citizen.

Nicholson Air v. Board of County Commissioners of Allegany County

120 Md. App. 47 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Feb 27, 1998

Maryland Rule 2-501 establishes a two-part test for summary judgment. … They were necessary to re-establish to meet the regulations for carrying passengers.