Case law

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.

Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC v. .12 Acres of Land, More or Less, in Washington County, Maryland, State of Maryland, Department of Natural Resources

District Court, D. Maryland · Dec 16, 2022

The Court further addressed New Jersey’s argument that despite the established eminent domain power in the NGA, it was immune from suit due to sovereign immunity: States’ immunity from suit is a fundamental aspect … The Supreme Court clearly stated that the Eleventh Amendment confers a waivable privilege, and the consent to waive this privilege “may, as here, be ‘inherent in the constitutional plan.’”

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.

Kennedy v. State

21 Md. App. 234 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · May 20, 1974

The State 'responded: “There has long been a procedure established . . . defendants have come in where they deem it appropriate and move the Court — file petitions, motion for appropriate relief to waive the matter back to … Counsel for appellant may in. good faith have feared that to invoke by pretrial motion the qualifying clause of Art. 26, § 70-2 (d) (3) (“unless an order removing the.proceeding to the juvenile court has been filed pursuant

Jabine v. Priola

45 Md. App. 218 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Apr 10, 1980

(Priolas), operate the Villa Romana Italian Restaurant No. 2, Inc., a dining establishment in the heart of the City of Annapolis. … Borinsky, supra, 239 Md. at 615-16 , 212 A.2d at 510 , the board’s attempted participation as a party is clearly without legal authority.

Geier v. Mercantile-Safe Deposit & Trust Co.

273 Md. 102 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Dec 17, 1974

Later, William Ernst did qualify as a co-trustee, however. … Only the last two cases clearly involve the capitalization of accumulated earnings. Baldwin v.

Julianna Ellett Giant Food, Inc.

66 Md. App. 695 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Mar 11, 1986

On the basis of the same factual allegations, Ellett charged Giant with conspiracy to deprive her of equal privileges and immunities under the law in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1985 (3). … This express limitation of a cause of action for defamation by the grant of a qualified privilege shows that the General Assembly knew how to restrict a civil action based on Art. 95A provisions.

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.”

Roskelly v. Lamone

396 Md. 27 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Dec 11, 2006

Walsh, 363 Md. 565, 595 , 770 A.2d 111, 129 (2001) (The “phrase ‘to perform purely religious functions’ clearly does not mean what is suggested.... … If the framers had wished to allow this scenario under Article XVI, they would not have established the June 1 deadline in the first place. See Yox. v.

Riley v. Venice Beach Citizens Ass'n

Court of Appeals of Maryland · Apr 19, 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).

Green v. Campbell

District Court, D. Maryland · Nov 3, 2021

; they are entitled to qualified immunity; and there is no basis for an Eighth Amendment claim for failure to protect Green from violence. … Further, the claim asserted by Green, a failure to protect him from violence despite his warnings that he was in danger of being assaulted, is a clearly established constitutional claim so that the qualified immunity defense

Maryland Attorney General Opinion 99OAG088

Maryland Attorney General Reports · Aug 20, 2014

We emphasize, in this context, that the applicants must indeed be qualified. … Jan. 12, 1998) (aspirational documents and policy to recruit broadest possible applicant pool and hire the most qualified did not establish a “tendency to discriminate”).

Fulp v. State

130 Md. App. 157 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Feb 3, 2000

But the overlap is not complete, because an overt act can qualify as an attempt and yet not rise to the level of an assault. … Lying in wait can be sufficient to establish attempt, but it would not constitute an assault.

SUPERVISOR OF ASSESSMENTS OF MONTGOMERY CTY. v. Asbury Methodist Home, Inc.

72 Md. App. 352 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Sep 2, 1987

CONCLUSION Asbury’s provision of apartment housing facilities with a life-care commitment, relieving the fear of exhausted life’s savings, is clearly a charitable use of property. … McRory, who qualified as an expert on housing in Montgomery County, opined that Asbury was a unique and ingenious way of providing housing for the elderly.

Consolidated Gas Co. v. Mayor of Baltimore

105 Md. 43 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Feb 13, 1907

In the opinion referred to the Court considered the question at length (p. 487 to 493), and explained very clearly and satisfactorily the difference which exists between a body of men proceeding under a law of that kind, … From this statement it cannot be doubted that they are generally qualified as experts upon the subject of inquiry in this case.

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.

Downs v. Reighard

265 Md. 344 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Apr 12, 1972

He had testified as an expert witness in regard to value of real estate in the Circuit Courts for Baltimore County and Harford County and is a qualified appraiser for the State Roads Commission. … We do not find that the findings of fact of the trial court, sitting without a jury, were clearly erroneous, Maryland Rule 886, nor, in our opinion, were his conclusions in error.

Schrader v. State

69 Md. App. 377 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Dec 4, 1986

Agent Holmes testified that an individual had to join the Flyer Program in order to *384 qualify for Morn’n Sun. … Once qualified for Morn’n Sun, the participant was to recruit other individuals to participate in that program.

Cossio v. Life Ins. Co. of North America

240 F. Supp. 2d 388 · District Court, D. Maryland · Nov 25, 2002

In this letter, Defendant listed its reasons for terminating Plaintiffs benefits and concluded that the evidence in Plaintiffs file did not establish a disability from “any occupation.” … Thereafter, the employee is covered under the policy only if she is disabled from any occupation for which she may become qualified based on education, training, and experience.

Pohopek v. McElroy Truck Lines, Inc.

140 Md. App. 235 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Sep 5, 2001

There is “no particular formula for establishing ‘regular’ employment,” id., and we must evaluate each set of circumstances on a case-by-case basis. … Subsection (a)(1) of Section 9-203 does not qualify the phrase “in this State” with the word, “wholly,” nor with the word, “regularly,” nor with the word, “casually.”