Case law

Openshaw v. Cohen, Klingenstein & Marks, Inc.

320 F. Supp. 2d 357 · District Court, D. Maryland · Jun 3, 2004

have fiduciaries comply with [29 U.S.C. § ] 1104(a)(1)(D)”). 10 Because there is no indi *365 cation that Congress intended to “soften[ ] the blow” of ERISA liability for breaches of fiduciary duty, allowing a fiduciary to immunize … Niemeyer) (Because in crafting ERISA “the common law of trusts was drawn upon freely ... when some clearly established aspect of common law is not incorporated, the omission would appear intended”).

Antwerpen v. Baltimore County

163 Md. App. 194 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jul 7, 2005

Not only does the use designated in Section 233.2 not utilize either the words “new” or “used,” but the uses described in Sections 233.2 and 236.4 above are clearly different. … Even if the special exception was never “declared” invalid, it was never a final valid special exception, which would qualify respondent to begin to vest rights in a zoning approval.

Payne v. Payne

136 Md. 551 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jun 17, 1920

The will was duly executed and attested, and on the testator’s death was duly probated, and the executor appears to have qualified and entered upon the administration of the estate. … On the other hand it is equally well established that every intendment is to be made against holding a man to be intestate who sits down to dispose of the rest and residue of his; property.

Caccamise v. Caccamise

130 Md. App. 505 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Mar 3, 2000

We are unable to conclude that the court’s decision was clearly erroneous. … Herrick involved the distribution of a profit sharing trust established by the husband.

Greenspring Racquet Club, Inc. v. Baltimore County

70 F. Supp. 2d 598 · District Court, D. Maryland · Sep 27, 1999

I assume for the purposes of the motion that Greenspring qualified for a waiver under Baltimore County Code § 26 — 171(b)(9). … The Supreme Court recently reiterated this well established element of a takings claim in Dolan v. City of Tigard, 512 U.S. 374 , 114 S.Ct. 2309 , 129 L.Ed.2d 304 (1994).

Johnson v. Sullivan

824 F. Supp. 1146 · District Court, D. Maryland · Nov 13, 1991

Plaintiff must also show that she is “otherwise qualified” 4 for the job in quesfipn, by establishing that in spite of. her handicap, she was qualified for the job or would be qualified for the job with or without reasonable … Under the facts clearly established at trial, namely that Dr.

Public Service Commission v. Panda-Brandywine, L.P.

375 Md. 185 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jun 10, 2003

The character, credit, and resources of Frederick had been tested and established before the contract was renewed. … Section 292.303(d), dealing with indirect purchases, provides that, “[¿] f a qualifying facility agrees, an electric utility which would otherwise be obligated to purchase energy or capacity from such qualifying facility

Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission v. Cae-Link Corp.

330 Md. 115 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Apr 8, 1993

On this point, the intermediate appellate court is clearly correct. … The court concluded, therefore, that the appraisals do not qualify as business records. Id We agree. V.

McKemy v. Baltimore County

39 Md. App. 257 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Apr 14, 1978

Because of its inappropriate reliance on that test, the Board failed to come clearly and completely to grips with these more relevant criteria. … McKemy contends that, if his use of the lots in question qualifies, under Bill No. 18-76, as a “trucking facility”, the county “must follow the restrictions set forth therein.”

Thompson v. State

62 Md. App. 190 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Mar 11, 1985

The Fourth Amendment interest there must be independently established. … Even if it were not deemed a counterpart “original,” as discussed above, it would still qualify as a “duplicate.”

Abrams v. State

176 Md. App. 600 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Sep 10, 2007

That Judge Perry clearly explained the nature of the charge of uttering to the defendant. … In response, the State argues that under Maryland law, there is no particular litany required to establish a voluntary and intelligent plea.

Morten v. State

Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Sep 4, 2019

Clearly, she was giving precise directions, not responding to emotional shock. … THE COURT: Well, no, she’s not qualified. She can’t give an expert opinion on that.

Abner v. Branch Banking & Trust Co.

180 Md. App. 685 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jul 3, 2008

The subcontractor appealed, arguing that § 12-303(1) was applicable, in that the right of possession is ultimately determined if a mechanic’s lien is *692 established and the property is sold at foreclosure. … Clearly, [the subcontractor] has no present right to possession and whether any such right may ultimately exist is purely speculative.

Cahill v. Mayor of Baltimore

173 Md. 450 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jan 13, 1938

An Act of 1783, ch. 24, providing for the appointment of port wardens “to preserve the navigation of the bason and harbor of Baltimore-town,” qualified the right to build wharves by prohibiting their construction without … The ordinance of 1926 seems clearly enough a provision for the property occupied by the Shipbuilding Corporation.

ARMCO STEEK CORP. v. Dept. of Assess. & Tax.

236 Md. 168 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jul 28, 1964

The record clearly established and the trial judge found that the profits normally realized by Asarco for each ton of ore refined for others was approximately $1.50. … The history of Section 5 clearly supports the above conclusion. When Section 5 was adopted in the 1949 revision of the City's Charter, it replaced former Section 4 thereof.

McManus v. Summers

290 Md. 408 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Sep 1, 1981

Rev. 550 , 554 (1952), "It is uniformly agreed that a tenancy by the entirety cannot be established unless the grantees are legally married.” … The immunities of a tenancy by the entireties can be enjoyed only by a lawfully married pair; but any other incidents may be included in any other plural ownership if the parties so intend.

Koch v. Specialized Care Services, Inc.

437 F. Supp. 2d 362 · District Court, D. Maryland · Sep 23, 2005

In other circuits, the evidence must “clearly relate” or “reasonably relate” to a possible violation. In re International Systems and Controls Corp. … Deering Milliken Inc., 540 F.2d 1215, 1219 (4th Cir.l976)(upholding attorney work product protection of document drafted by former general house counsel and vice-president of company because "opinion work product immunity

MacKe Co. v. Comptroller of Treasury

302 Md. 18 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Dec 26, 1984

Moreover, the Comptroller's administrative practice is clearly in conflict with the plain meaning of § 324(f)(i). … does not qualify for use tax exclusion.

Wheeler v. State

233 Md. App. 265 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jul 3, 2017

A State chemist, who was qualified as an expert in the chemical analysis and identification of heroin, testified that she received a package with the same complaint number from the evidence control unit (ECU). … It was established that Detective Trojan was the packaging/submitting officer that day.

Wash. Gas Light Co. v. Md. Pub. Serv. Comm'n

460 Md. 667 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Aug 14, 2018

On May 27, 2015, Chief Judge Romine issued an order, concluding that for “an infrastructure replacement project to be an ‘eligible infrastructure replacement’ under the STRIDE law,” and thus qualifying for accelerated … Clearly, Washington Gas did not discuss using the STRIDE statute with regard to out-of-state infrastructure projects.