Case law

Chao v. Malkani

216 F. Supp. 2d 505 · District Court, D. Maryland · Jul 9, 2002

Malkani and ISN are clearly Plan fiduciaries under this standard. … ISN also qualifies as a fiduciary under ERISA § 3(21)(A)(iii). According to the defendants, ISN has provided over $700,000 worth of administrative services to the Plan.

Acme Poultry Corp. v. Melville

188 Md. 365 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · May 14, 1947

State, 173 Md. 103 , 194 A. 832 , where the point of collision was established by glass and other debris. In Gloyd v. … We also think that the State Police officer was sufficiently qualified to express an opinion that the tires of the vehicles would leave marks if they were pushed sideways.

Met Laboratories, Inc. v. Reich

875 F. Supp. 304 · District Court, D. Maryland · Feb 3, 1995

Finally, it asks the Court to order DOL to notify all potentially interested parties that, in essence, MET is a fully and equally qualified NRTL. … Such a delay is clearly unreasonable and thus a violation of the settlement agreement.

Berkson v. Berryman

63 Md. App. 134 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · May 13, 1985

Clearly they exist and Mr. … The effect of the default judgment is to establish Dr.

Morse v. Boswell

289 F. Supp. 812 · District Court, D. Maryland · Aug 6, 1968

To this Court, the word “when” clearly looks to the future. Winters v. … The uncontradicted testimonj' of the Commanding Officer of the 1002d Combat Support Company established to the contrary.

Valcourt v. Ross

201 Md. 17 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Nov 11, 1952

The statute qualifies this rule but does not do away with it completely. As this Court said in Askin v. … A right of way, like a burden of proof, will establish precedence when rights might otherwise be balanced. It helps us little when without it the balance would be unequal.

Westmoreland v. Prince George's County

876 F. Supp. 2d 594 · District Court, D. Maryland · Jun 26, 2012

This burden of production requires the employer to “ ‘clearly set forth, through the introduction of admissible evidence,’ reasons for its actions which, if believed by the trier of fact, would support a finding that unlawful … “In the McDonnell Douglas framework, the plaintiff must first establish a prima facie case of retaliation, whereupon the burden shifts to the employer to establish a legitimate non-retaliatory reason for the action.”

Nelson v. State

5 Md. App. 109 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Sep 16, 1968

Nelson’s identity was clearly established by other witnesses and admitted by himself. The contention is frivolous. … Also, the mere presence of a person at the scene of a crime is not of itself sufficient to establish that that person was either a principal or an accessory to the crime or sufficient to establish any fact except that he

Kelly v. Duvall

441 Md. 275 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jan 27, 2015

Duvall’s Will clearly expressed a contrary intent. … Thus, Kelly, Jr. qualifies for one-quarter of the residuary of the estate.

Horne v. State

321 Md. 547 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jan 9, 1991

The Court of Special Appeals apparently believed that it was incumbent upon Horne, who sought to impeach the witness, to proffer that the prior convictions qualified because they were final. … Moreover, Horne’s statement to the police officer that the motor scooter had been stolen clearly established his scienter. Once again, we disagree.

Maxima Corp. v. Cystic Fibrosis Foundation

81 Md. App. 602 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Feb 6, 1990

Maxima qualified this position in June, 1987, however, by a letter that stated inter alia, “Maxima offers the same buy-out proposal it made previously.” … Clearly, Maxima was initially to occupy T100 in September, 1986.

Stewart v. State

275 Md. 258 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jun 25, 1975

Since a statute should be construed according to the ordinary and natural import of the language used, unless a different meaning is clearly indicated by its context, without resorting to subtle or forced interpretations … As appellant was lawfully under sentence and committed to the jail, the fact that he was physically beyond its confines when he escaped does not immunize him from prosecution under the statute. See Fabian v.

Winston v. U.S. Department of Education

District Court, D. Maryland · Jul 6, 2022

does not always waive the Government’s immunity[.]”). … But the APA’s waiver is qualified. It can be limited by another statute. Section 702 states that “[n]othing herein . . .

Brown v. State

90 Md. App. 220 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jan 31, 1992

For purposes of review by the trial court or on appeal, the continuing objection is effective only as to questions clearly within its scope. (Emphasis added.) … Criminal Law (2d ed. 1972), p. 659 observes: Even more clearly, he does not qualify for the voluntary manslaughter treatment where, because of intoxication, he easily loses his self-control; that is to say, he is to be judged

Sobus v. Knisley

11 Md. App. 134 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Feb 3, 1971

After voir dire cross-examination the court ruled that the witness was qualified, and he proceeded to testify to his conclusions and findings about the accident. … This testimony of the officer, although it went in after objection, was clearly admissible. In Maryland Paper Products Co. v.

Stocksdale

District Court, D. Maryland · Feb 19, 2026

The food stamps program is administered by the states and provides benefits to qualified recipients under a formula that considers the number of people living in the household and the total income … Under the Eleventh Amendment, states generally enjoy immunity from suit by private individuals in federal court unless a state waives its immunity, or the immunity is abrogated by Congress. See Bd. of Tres. v.

Riley v. Venice Beach Citizens Ass'n

Court of Appeals of Maryland · May 1, 2024

It also found that the circuit court’s denial of Bay Pride’s Large Section claim was not clearly erroneous. … As explained, in my view, the prior grant of summary judgment was not qualified under Maryland Rule 2-501(g).

Matthews v. State

304 Md. 281 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Oct 10, 1985

A trial court clearly has the authority and responsibility to correct an illegal sentence at any time, Md. Rule 774 a; Carter v. … Probation should not be allowed to develop into a grant of immunity from punishment.

Robinson v. State

348 Md. 104 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Nov 19, 1997

Specifically, he stated that he removed the transparent baggie from its plastic container and “could see the eight pieces clearly.” … Although the plaintiff in Scott was not qualified as an expert, we concluded that his prior experiences and observations in the operation of cranes qualified him to offer lay opinion testimony in that case.

Evans v. Holiday Inns, Inc.

951 F. Supp. 85 · District Court, D. Maryland · Jan 13, 1997

Communications Satellite Corp., 759 F.2d 355, 365 (4th Cir. 1985) (“[u]nsupported allegations ... do not confer talismanie immunity from Rule 56.”). … There is no diversity of citizenship jurisdiction in this case; jurisdiction over the state-law claims is clearly based on supplemental jurisdiction.