Case law

Tapestry, Inc. v. Factory Mut. Insurance

Court of Appeals of Maryland · Dec 29, 2022

,” see Leon Gordis, Epidemiology 26 (5th ed. 2014) (defining “herd immunity” as “the resistance of a group of people to an attack by a disease to which a large proportion of the members of the group are immune”), with no … Contamination qualifies as physical loss or damage only if it renders the subject property unusable or uninhabitable.”); Bel Air Auto, 534 F.

Munger v. United States

116 F. Supp. 2d 672 · District Court, D. Maryland · Oct 23, 2000

This is especially true under the FTCA, which clearly states that the court is to apply the law of the state in which the wrongful acts occurred. … In the present case the decedent’s parents are bringing the action, so there are qualified persons under subsection (a).

Seaboard Surety Co. v. Richard F. Kline, Inc.

91 Md. App. 236 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Apr 8, 1992

Clearly, there are disputes as to these facts; however, resolution of these disputes makes no difference in the determination of the legal question at issue here. … This is so because of certain established principles governing the law of joint ventures and partnerships which make these facts irrelevant and certain undisputed facts controlling.

Butler v. Prince Georges County, Maryland

District Court, D. Maryland · Jun 7, 2023

City of Independence, Mo., 445 U.S. 622, 650 (1980) (holding that municipalities do not benefit from the qualified immunity of their own officers) (emphasis added); Berkley v. … Fourth, the Judge Defendants argue that the Court erred in applying the Ex Parte Young exception to their potential liability for equitable relief because the facts alleged here do not establish that a “special relationship

Vetter v. Am. Airlines, Inc.

299 F. Supp. 3d 714 · District Court, D. Maryland · Mar 5, 2018

Thus, it is undisputed that Vetter had a qualifying disability from May 3, 2012 until July 23, 2012. … However, her other claimed conditions did not qualify as disabilities under the Plan. Aug. 12, 2013 Ltr., AR 57.

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.

Anderson v. State

227 Md. App. 329 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Mar 30, 2016

Eight particles of three-component gunshot residue were found on appellant’s right hand that, in the gunshot residue expert’s opinion, could only 6 Gbadyu, although subpoenaed and given immunity by the … And, when a defendant’s actions so clearly involve actions that are likely to bring about death, they speak for themselves with regard to willfulness. Pinkney, 151 Md. App. at 333.

Chew v. Baker

133 Md. 637 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jan 16, 1919

This is established by the testimony of a number of well qualified witnesses, by the character of the property itself, and by the fact that the Eastern Shore Trust Company regarded the property as sufficient security for … It was held that where “it is clearly established by the depositions, that the sale was affected by suggestions made at the time of the sale, that thereby a person was prevented from bidding, and the land hath been sold for

Berlyn, Inc. v. Gazette Newspapers, Inc.

223 F. Supp. 2d 718 · District Court, D. Maryland · Aug 16, 2002

Shaffer, arguing that he is not qualified to offer opinion testimony relevant to this case. … This clearly fails to establish any of the three elements of an agency agreement under Maryland law.

Office of the Public Defender v. State

413 Md. 411 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Apr 16, 2010

It accordingly established the OPD and designated the Public Defender as its “head.” § 3. … Nor is the absence of appellate decisions holding the OPD, who has declined representation, immune to appointment by a circuit court persuasive. The converse is equally true.

Morales v. Bryant Concrete Construction

Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jan 28, 2026

To determine whether an individual qualifies as an employer, both Maryland and federal courts apply the “economic reality test.” … App. 240, 249 (2011) (“A factual finding is clearly erroneous if there is no competent and material evidence in the record to support it.”).

Bagwell v. Peninsula Regional Medical Center

106 Md. App. 470 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Sep 28, 1995

Given that Bagwell consented to appellees’ disclosure of Bagwell’s employment files to OCPD and WCDOC, appellant cannot establish a prima facie case. … The question of whether a defamatory communication enjoys a qualified privilege is a matter of law for the court. Exxon Corp. v.

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.

Perry v. State

344 Md. 204 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Dec 16, 1996

That is often done when the admission of evidence, offered after the jury is sworn, depends upon the establishment of a factual predicate. … Alternatively, we should address this issue on direct appeal since the record clearly demonstrates that the petitioner’s counsel rendered inadequate assistance of counsel.

Ash v. Russell

District Court, D. Maryland · Jul 31, 2024

Ash’s claims are based on judicial acts, all four defendants are entitled to judicial immunity. Judicial immunity has been long-established, and Mr. … Under the well-established legal doctrine of sovereign immunity, the United States, its departments, and agencies cannot be sued without its express consent. United States v. Mitchell, 463 U.S. 206, 212 (1983).

Kpetigo v. Kpetigo

238 Md. App. 561 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Aug 30, 2018

The court also found that Parent qualified as F’s de facto parent under the factors set forth in Conover v. … The Court grounded its decision in the fact that “the precedent was ‘clearly wrong and contrary to established principles,’” “the passage of time and evolving events have rendered Janice M. obsolete,” and that “a majority

Gray v. Harriet Lane Home for Invalid Children

192 Md. 251 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Feb 10, 1949

Today methods of treatment and immunization have removed diphtheria as a serious menace. Scarlet fever, under modern methods of treatment, is regarded as a mild disease. … It proposed to establish several playgrounds out of the fund and to reserve an amount necessary for the maintenance and upkeep of said park.

Thompson v. Clemens

60 L.R.A. 580 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jan 15, 1903

, when the landlord was under contract to make the repairs, but many of the decisions we there referred to, and others that might be cited, in announciug the general rule as to the landlord’s liability to the tenant, do qualify … If the use of that part of the porch was dangerous, the plaintiff knew it, and if she had been injured in the use of that would clearly have been guilty of contributory negligence.

Butcher

District Court, D. Maryland · Apr 21, 2026

and enforce safety rules • Failed to establish speed limits and mandatory stop locations • Failed to clearly mark lanes of travel for industrial equipment and pedestrians 10 Plaintiff … The facts he alleges do not defeat defendants’ immunity from liability.

Franklin v. State

6 Md. App. 572 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Apr 23, 1969

The Sergeant’s testimony clearly showed that he gave appellant all warnings required under Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U. … See also the Annotation appearing in 89 A.L.R.2d 478 , entitled “Impeachment of Accused as Witness by Use of Involuntary or Not Properly Qualified Confession.”