Case law

Tapestry, Inc. v. Factory Mut. Insurance

Court of Appeals of Maryland · Dec 15, 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.

Balt. City Police Dept. v. Esteppe

247 Md. App. 476 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Aug 27, 2020

Such a finding does not disadvantage either party and, if ultimately established, provides: (1) the tort plaintiff with a deep pocket from which to recover; and (2) immunity from the judgment for the tortfeasor employee, … Esteppe and, therefore, the Department maintained its defense of sovereign immunity to Mr. Esteppe’s claim. We will address that defense below in Part II.

Penna. R.R. Co. v. Public Ser. Com.

126 Md. 59 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Apr 16, 1915

When couched in so general terms the ground for such a prayer is not clearly evident. … It was further held that despite this range of permissible action, the State has no arbitrary power over rates; that the devotion of the property of the carrier to public use is qualified by the condition of the carrier's

Adams v. Giant Food, Inc.

225 F. Supp. 2d 600 · District Court, D. Maryland · Sep 30, 2002

In order to establish a prima facie case of discriminatory discharge, each plaintiff must establish: (1) that he is a member of a protected class; (2) that he was qualified for his job and his job performance was satisfactory … Simply put, the evidence clearly establishes that similarly situated employees who were caught overstaying their breaks and sleeping while on the job or engaging in similarly unacceptable behavior were treated the same regardless

Attorney Grievance Commission v. Christopher

383 Md. 624 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Nov 16, 2004

We conduct an independent review of the record, accepting the hearing judge’s findings of fact unless clearly erroneous. … Tellefsen *650 or other similarly qualified health care professional certifying that Nathan H.

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.

United States v. Fairchild Industries, Inc.

766 F. Supp. 405 · District Court, D. Maryland · May 2, 1991

There is no substantial question of law: these elements have been clearly outlined in this circuit and in others. See United States v. Aceto Agricultural Chemicals Corp., 872 F.2d 1373 (8th Cir.1989); New York v. … It is well-established in this Circuit that CERCLA sets forth a strict liability scheme. Monsanto, 858 F.2d at 167 .

Washington v. Galbraith

District Court, D. Maryland · Mar 27, 2024

immunity. … immunity or exhaustion.

Reeder v. Nationwide Mutual Fire Insurance

419 F. Supp. 2d 750 · District Court, D. Maryland · Mar 13, 2006

We decline to accept a reading of that provision immunizing WYO companies from liability for the tortious conduct of their agents.”). … The record does not clearly reflect the date on which the Plaintiffs filed their complaint in the Circuit Court for Baltimore County. (See Compl.

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

Gordy v. Dennis

176 Md. 106 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · May 29, 1939

The reasoning of the court, however, clearly indicated it would follow the dissent. Another case much relied on is State ex rel. Wickham v. Nygaard, 1915, 159 Wis. 396 , 150 N.W. 513 . … be prodently accepted by those who are qualified by talent, knowledge, integrity, and capacity, but are not possessed of such a private fortune as to make an assured salary an object of personal concern.

State v. Thornton

73 Md. App. 247 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Dec 2, 1987

The defendant was then sworn and “qualified” by defense counsel. … SHEPERD: I believe he is qualified, Judge.

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.”).

Gill v. State

265 Md. 350 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Apr 12, 1972

Since it is uncontradicted that the suspect was in fact in the sole presence of this police interrogator, that specific person must rebut the allegations of coercion as no one else is qualified to do so. Streams v. … The State, in its brief, claims that: “Such action by the Court of Special Appeals is clearly permitted and in fact mandated by Maryland Rule 1071”.

Smith v. State

116 Md. App. 43 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jun 25, 1997

As a lay witness, appellant is qualified to offer opinion evidence, and testimony regarding reasonable inferences, if “rationally based on the perception of the witness.” Md. Rule 5-701(1). … His testimony clearly indicated that Ms. Harrison had wounds on her chest.

Porterfield v. Mascari II, Inc.

374 Md. 402 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · May 8, 2003

They predict that an employee then could be immunized from an adverse employment decision merely by stating “I am calling a lawyer.” … This is not an assumption we accept because, as Respondent suggests, the necessary extension of such a conclusion is that “an employee could be immunized from an adverse employment action by simply announcing, T am calling

Sangston v. Hack

52 Md. 173 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jun 20, 1879

the fact satisfactorily, that some of the Articles have been practically waived, or abrogated, or qualified, while others are necessarily implied as being in full force and operation. … The authorities which these authors cite as establishing the doctrine clearly sustain it, though the instances in which the question has been directly presented for adjudication are comparatively few.

Baltimore County v. Batza

67 Md. App. 282 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Apr 10, 1986

One that is clearly distinct is issue II—whether there is, in the first instance, a justiciable controversy. … Ebersberger rested on the premise established in Tanner v.

Kroschinsky v. Trustees of Steamship Trade Ass'n/International Longshoremen's Ass'n Pension Trust Fund-Benefits Trust Fund

790 F. Supp. 559 · District Court, D. Maryland · Feb 11, 1992

From 1974 through 1984, Krosehinsky qualified for Group A benefits. … Clearly, the Benefits Fund falls under the former rather than the latter definition.

United Bank v. Buckingham

472 Md. 407 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Mar 9, 2021

preceding words or phrase—particularly in the absence of a comma before the qualifying phrase.” … Here, the qualifying phrase—“of tangible or intangible property”—is not set off by commas, and therefore it only modifies the immediately preceding term “pledge.”