Case law

Dunnaville v. McCormick & Co., Inc.

21 F. Supp. 2d 527 · District Court, D. Maryland · Sep 29, 1998

Nordhoffs alleged statement that “they had a deal” could not qualify as such because so many important terms of the transaction were up in the air, including the purchase price and the extent to which McCormick was willing … Moreover, a third party who provides advice at the request of one of the negotiating parties enjoys immunity from a “tortious interference” claim. See Storch v.

Troy v. Hart

116 Md. App. 468 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jun 3, 1997

Lettich was ultimately deemed qualified to receive those benefits on or about 1 January 1995. All medical expenses were paid by Medicare and Medicaid from that day forward. … The circuit court further addressed appellant’s claim of undue influence and found that appellant clearly did not establish that the free agency of Lettich was destroyed.

Arvinger v. Mayor & City Council of Baltimore

811 F. Supp. 1121 · District Court, D. Maryland · Jan 15, 1993

Defendant Daniel’s motion for summary judgment based on qualified immunity is DENIED. … Under the first prong of the Harlow test, The Court finds that the law prohibiting retaliation against Title VII plaintiffs, as, well as the constitutional protection of speech on matters of public concern, were clearly established

Snyder v. Cearfoss

190 Md. 151 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Mar 18, 1948

Both, executors qualified, but William Firey Snyder died in 1942. As Miss Cearfoss had not conveyed the property, William Firey Snyder’s widow, Elva B. … Snyder qualified as administratrix of the estates of her mother and aunt. Thereupon she filed the instant suits.

Beye v. Bureau of National Affairs

59 Md. App. 642 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jul 16, 1984

If an employer directly discharges an at-will employee in such manner as to make the discharge an abusive one under Adler , it would defy both reason and fairness to immunize him from liability simply because he has been … Although he mentions the episode with Thomas occurring some time in or before 1974, that clearly was not the cause for his ultimate termination.

Straw v. U.S. Department of State

District Court, D. Maryland · May 14, 2020

A “waiver of sovereign immunity must be unequivocally expressed in statutory text,” and the waiver must be “clearly evident from the language of the statute.” FAA v. … Thus, because plaintiff has not established that the denial of Ms.

Marshall v. Baltimore & Ohio Railroad

461 F. Supp. 362 · District Court, D. Maryland · Dec 5, 1978

The important question again is whether defendants qualify for a 4(f)(2) defense. VI. … The Department contends that the legislative history of the amendment clearly establishes a Congressional intent to clarify, rather than alter, the meaning of section 4(f)(2) as enacted in 1967 and to apply the clarified

Baltimore Police Dept. v. Antonin

237 Md. App. 348 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jun 1, 2018

is as strong as their duty to refrain from presiding when not qualified. . . . … statement, made in response to the filing of criminal charges against Antonin, communicated what should be obvious, that the BPD does not approve of officers breaking the law to enforce the law, i.e., that officers are not immune

Raithel v. State

280 Md. 291 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · May 5, 1977

recognize, as suggested by the Court of Special Appeals, that the evidence presented to meet both parts of the competency test prescribed by the statute may overlap to some extent, we also take the view that both must be established … Kreiner, 109 Md. 361, 370 , 71 A. 1066 (1909), and may be reversed if founded on an error of law or some serious mistake, or if the trial court has clearly abused its discretion. Radman v.

Town of Bel Air v. Bodt

487 Md. 354 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jul 9, 2024

Mgmt., Co., 293 Md. 394, 396 (1982) (noting that “[i]t is well established under our decisions that a municipal corporation has but limited authority”); Birge v. … The language in the Charter clearly specifies that the right of referendum applies to an ordinance in its entirety, and not to part of one.

Holsey v. Bass

519 F. Supp. 395 · District Court, D. Maryland · Jul 13, 1981

The court considered the defenses of truth, qualified privilege, prosecutorial immunity, and the statute of limitations. Id. at 7-8. Limitations is an affirmative defense. F.R.Civ.P. 8(c). … The Court notes that the defenses of absolute and qualified immunity will prevent a plaintiff from recovering damages from many of the defendants who participated in a criminal proceeding. 22 .

Luskin's Inc. v. Consumer Protection Division

338 Md. 188 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · May 5, 1995

Luskin’s argues that these are purely legal issues, but, at a minimum, they clearly contain factual elements. … We agree, as the CPD’s jurisdiction is clearly evidenced by numerous provisions of the Consumer Protection Act.

United States v. Undetermined Quantities of Articles of Drug

145 F. Supp. 2d 692 · District Court, D. Maryland · Jun 12, 2001

The Second Circuit has ruled that a product may qualify as a “dietary supplement” under § 321 (f© for certain purposes under the FDCA and may also qualify as a “drug” under § 321(g)(1)(C). See United States v. … Under the two step Chevron test, the reviewing court must first answer whether Congress has clearly spoken on the issue within the statute. Id. at 842 , 104 S.Ct. 2778 .

Attorney Grievance Commission v. Frost

437 Md. 245 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Feb 26, 2014

The facts establish that Respondent made the following statements in his email dated April 23, 2012, later disseminated to members of the Bar: 1. That the Honorable Ann S. … We note that there are qualified and absolute privileges that will apply to certain speech as a defense to defamation claims, and these privileges generally apply equally to statements made by lawyers.

Nance v. State

7 Md. App. 433 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Aug 8, 1969

II — SUFFICIENCY OF EVIDENCE The corpus delicti of the crimes were clearly established at trial by the testimony of the victims. … The immunity from giving testimony is one which the defendant may waive by offering himself as a witness, [citations omitted] ... He may be examined for the purpose of impeaching his credibility. Reagan v.

Larocca v. Creig Northrop Team, P.C.

217 Md. App. 536 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jun 25, 2014

After explaining that the covenant clearly prohibited the father from participating in any way in (continued... … Mathews’ conversations with appellants regarding the Bridge Loan Program qualify as advertisements pursuant to the SMLL, but also that the brochures distributed by her company would qualify as well.

Gent v. Kelbaugh

179 Md. 343 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Mar 5, 1941

Baptiste occurred prior to that of the testatrix, none of the other sisters would have immediately succeeded to any income from the trust estate; because the apparent intent of the testatrix was to establish a special trust … Under the clearly expressed terms of the ninth item of the will, it was possible for Mrs Baptiste, as the sole survivor of the five named sisters, to have likewise been the sole beneficiary of the indicated income for the

Strawhorn v. Strawhorn

49 Md. App. 649 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Oct 7, 1981

[H]is agreement to aid in the support of his stepdaughter created nothing more than a debt for which the constitution affords him immunity from incarceration when he failed to discharge his contractual obligation. … Although appellee may be entitled to alimony, the record does not reveal, nor did the chancellor clearly indicate the basis upon which it was granted.

Reeves v. Maryland Department of Transportation, Motor Vehicle Administration

District Court, D. Maryland · Jul 1, 2024

On April 20, Plaintiff mistakenly “allowed a customer who was not qualified for a license to enter the driving test room.” ECF 3, at 8 ¶ 54. … Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 100 (1984) (“[A] State’s waiver of sovereign immunity in its own courts is not a waiver of the Eleventh Amendment immunity in the federal courts.”).

Proctor v. Holden

75 Md. App. 1 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Apr 14, 1988

Clearly the Holdens were not agreeing to obtain a mortgage with both a fixed rate and an adjusta *10 ble rate. … The evidence was insufficient as a matter of law to establish a fiduciary relationship between Freeman & Kagan and the Holdens. Mr.