Case law

World Business Lenders, LLC v. G7, Medicare and Medicate a/k/a, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid

District Court, D. Maryland · Feb 28, 2020

The moving party “must clearly establish the grounds [for its motion] to the satisfaction of the district court,” and those grounds “must be clearly substantiated by adequate proof.” … “It is well established that the United States Government, as sovereign, is immune from suit unless it consents to be sued.” Khatami v. Compton, 844 F. Supp. 2d 654, 663 (D. Md. 2012) (quoting Gould v. U.S.

Bainum v. Kalen

272 Md. 490 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Sep 30, 1974

a residence for political purposes in the State of Michigan and therefore has not complied with the residency requirements of the Maryland Constitution in order to qualify for the office he seeks.” … Where the evidence relating to voting and the evidence *499 concerning where a person actually lives both clearly point to the same jurisdiction, it is likely that such place will be deemed to constitute the individual’s

County Comm'rs of Charles Co. v. Stevens

299 Md. 203 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Apr 4, 1984

As such, Smith is clearly distinguishable. … Inevitably, tension may develop between the local control envisioned by federalism and the establishment of a national economy. 13 But, as the Supreme Court has made clear, the power of local governments to serve their citizens

Guardian Life Insurance Co. of America v. Insurance Commissioner

293 Md. 629 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jun 29, 1982

Dobbins explained that a multiple insurer trust is established to cover employers in a related industry so as to afford benefits to small groups that could not otherwise qualify for available high risk benefits. … It stated: "The preferred status given to multiple employer group health insurance trusts but not to other multiple employer group health insurance plans which also use a master policy device clearly indicates a legislative

Garcia v. Baltimore Police Department

District Court, D. Maryland · Apr 21, 2023

. ⁋ 26), and on three occasions, a promotion to Sergeant despite being qualified for the rank. (Id. ⁋⁋ 27-28). … Plaintiff further alleges that defendant manipulated the list of qualified applicants for both the Detective and Sergeant positions to avoid promoting plaintiff.

Kelly v. McCarrick

155 Md. App. 82 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Feb 5, 2004

The court did not address whether appellee Welch had statutory immunity from negligence liability. … Sports L.J. 93 (1997)(advo-cating immunity legislation and a liability scheme other than ordinary negligence for volunteer coaches); Jamie Brown, Legislators Strike Out: Volunteer Little League Coaches Should Not Be Immune

State v. Baltimore & Ohio Rail-road

6 Gill 363 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Dec 15, 1847

There is clearly nothing in this section which is in any manner imperative on the Company to declare dividends of their net profits. … The decision of this court, in I G. 8p J. 425, on the principle which it establishes, bears a strong affinity to this case.

Yuan v. Johns Hopkins University

452 Md. 436 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Mar 29, 2017

However, because the public policy he is alleging is not clearly discernible, as we cannot determine if a research misconduct violation occurred, we do not recognize the policy to establish his claim for wrongful termination … Yuan was not terminated for refusing to engage in clearly unlawful conduct. Dr.

Bank of Glen Burnie v. Loyola Federal Savings Bank

336 Md. 331 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Oct 7, 1994

This Court summarized its holding by noting that: *339 “[T]he rule of commercial law, that no title can be acquired through a forged endorsement, ... is no doubt clearly settled, but its very statement shows it can have no … Thus, Glen Burnie cannot qualify for protection únder the finality rule as a party who changed its position in reliance on Loyola’s final payment. .

Crofton Convalescent Center, Inc. v. Department of Health & Mental Hygiene

413 Md. 201 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Apr 8, 2010

Apart from this express statement clearly treating bond interest as mortgage interest, we agree with the Board that Title 10 does not define the scope of mortgage interest. See COMAR 10.09.10.01 (“Definitions”). … Only necessary interest, however, qualifies as an allowable cost. 42 C.F.R. § 413.153 (a); PRM § 202.2.

State v. Rich

454 Md. 448 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jul 14, 2017

But, “[t]he trial court’s findings of fact, on which it bases its decision to grant or deny the petition for writ of error coram nobis, will not be reversed on appeal unless they are clearly erroneous or clearly against … The involuntariness of a guilty plea is an error “of a constitutional, jurisdictional or fundamental character” that qualifies for coram nobis relief.

Alexander v. State

Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Oct 9, 2024

The qualifying test is not necessity but relevance. … It would qualify for double jeopardy protection pursuant to subsection 6-205(f) even if it did not necessarily qualify as an act of double jeopardy pursuant to Blockburger v.

Frederick W. Berens, Inc. v. Fidelity Mutual Life Insurance

257 Md. 168 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Mar 25, 1970

It is legally insufficient to establish such waiver. II. … The evidence clearly shows that Fidelity knew that Equitable would not lease prior to the time when Laurel released Equitable from their lease.” *182 All of the above contentions of Laurel Plaza do not appear as clearly as

Burch v. United Cable Television of Baltimore Ltd. Partnership

391 Md. 687 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Apr 7, 2006

As indicated above, “the Court’s established policy is to decide constitutional issues only when necessary.” Mercy Hospital v. Jackson, 306 Md. 556, 565 , 510 A.2d 562, 566 (1986). … small privileged group of consumers wdio would be legally protected, for the indefinite future, from paying the late fees that all other late-paying consumers in Maryland might have to pay. *704 This discrimination would clearly

McGehee v. McGehee

152 Md. 661 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Mar 23, 1927

Mc-Gehee qualified as executor. … The Court, also said: “There are cases of void wills, such as the will of a feme covert, or an infant, which certainly, by established cases, will not demand an election; but these have been rightly placed on a *670 ground

Mangione v. Snead

173 Md. 33 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Oct 29, 1937

But even so, if it definitely and clearly appeared that there was in fact no rational basis for the opinion, it had no probative force. Donnelly v. Donnelly, 156 Md. 81 , 143 A. 648; Livingston v. Safe Dep. & Tr. … Bradford, 133 Md. 363, 367 , 105 A. 303 . *51 There must, however, be a reliable basis for the adjudication of it as a fact, something beyond mere conjecture, or possibility; and the burden is upon the plaintiff to establish

Kaplan v. Kaplan

248 Md. App. 358 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Nov 18, 2020

The court stated that “[t]here’s evidence to indicate that she’s qualified to earn significant income, and that she has, in the past, earned income in excess of what she’s claiming now.” … The court stated that “[t]here’s evidence to indicate that she’s qualified to earn significant income, and that she has, in the past, earned income in excess of what she’s claiming now.”

Oesby v. State

142 Md. App. 144 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jan 4, 2002

A fortio-ri, it was not clearly erroneous. E. … As we balance, therefore, the emphasis must be not on the noun “prejudice” but on the qualifying, and limiting, adjective “unfair.” It is the failure to appreciate this distinction that leads many analyses astray.

Schear v. Motel Management Corp. of America

61 Md. App. 670 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Feb 14, 1985

It is clearly established, however, that police investigative reports are admissible under the business records exception only to the extent that information contained therein is within the personal observation of the investigating … The “rational probative value” of these print-outs in establishing the hotel’s negligence was questionable, particularly when there was no way of establishing how many of the “reported” offenses actually occurred.

Baltimore Cnty. v. Quinlan

466 Md. 1 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Aug 26, 2019

First, we review 1 The questions, as granted, were as follows: (1) Did the trial court err in denying Petitioner’s motion for summary judgment, given the lack of a clearly … We should not change the meaning of the statute by adding qualifying language which would limit workers’ entitlement to relief.