Case law

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.

The Estate of Jamaal Taylor v. Baltimore County

District Court, D. Maryland · Jan 26, 2024

App. 2014) (“[Actual] malice is established by proof that the defendant-officer ‘intentionally performed an act without legal justification or excuse, but with an evil or rancorous motive influenced by hate, the purpose … In Maryland, “law enforcement officers are public officials and, thus, fall within the scope of qualified immunity as to their discretionary acts.” Williams v.

Meyer v. State State v. Rivera

445 Md. 648 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Dec 22, 2015

First, this Court may strike down a decision that is, ‘clearly wrong and contrary to established principles.’” DRD Pool Serv., Inc. v. Freed, 416 Md. 46, 64, 5 A.3d 45, 55 (2010) (quoting State v. … “[I]t is sometimes advisable to correct a decision or decisions wrongly made in the first instance, if it is found that the decision is clearly wrong and contrary to other established principles.” Townsend v.

Johnson & Higgins of Pennsylvania, Inc. v. Hale Shipping Corp.

121 Md. App. 426 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · May 1, 1998

Did the Trial Court Abuse its Discretion in Qualifying Mr. Cave as an Expert Witness? Johnson & Higgins contends that the trial court abused its discretion in qualifying Mr. … Cave was clearly testifying as to the difficulty individuals have in understanding maritime insurance policies in particular that have an exception within them and then create an exception to that exception by the imposition

Cochran v. Smith

District Court, D. Maryland · Sep 28, 2021

When considering whether a claim is frivolous, § 1915(e)(2) grants courts “the unusual power to pierce the veil of the complaint’s factual allegations and dismiss those claims whose factual contentions are clearly baseless … This cause of action cannot be maintained because it is prohibited by the doctrine of prosecutorial immunity.

Sare v. Nikiforidou

District Court, D. Maryland · Jul 29, 2025

A facial challenge asserts “that the allegations pleaded in the complaint are insufficient to establish subject matter jurisdiction.” Id. … The statements presented by Plaintiff are analyzed here as defamatory per quod, as they do not clearly show harm outside of the context of the investigation. See id.

Fletcher v. Foxwell

District Court, D. Maryland · Oct 25, 2019

immunity. … Qualified Immunity □ Although Defendants generally assert the defense of qualified immunity, they merely recite the legal standard and provide no factual or legal

Griffith v. Diffenderffer

50 Md. 466 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Feb 7, 1879

In addition to this, the instruction was clearly erroneous, in submitting to the jury under the circumstances surrounding this case, the question whether the testatrix fully understood the provisions and effect of the will … If no evidence is offered, or if it is not such, as one in reason and fairness could find from it the facts sought to he established, the’ Court ought not to submit the finding of such facts to the jury.

Rosenkovitz v. United Railways & Electric Co.

108 Md. 306 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jun 24, 1908

In this State the rule of law applicable to cases where injuries result to persons bearing the relation of mere licensees has been established by a long line of decisions. B. & O. R. R. Co. v. … and whether said injuries are, in their nature, permanent, and how far they are calculated to disable the plaintiff from engaging in those business pursuits for which, in the absence of said injuries, he would have been qualified

Zitomer v. Slate

21 Md. App. 709 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jun 27, 1974

. *715 The cases frequently recognize a distinction, however, between “pure statutes of limitation” and a limitation qualifying a statutory right in which time is made an integral part of the right created, so that there … These cases construing Art. 93, § 112 are clearly apposite to the present case.

General German Aged People's Home v. Hammerbacker

64 Md. 595 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Mar 10, 1886

The certificate of incorporation provides, “ That the corporation so formed, is a corporation for the purpose to establish and maintain in the City of Baltimore, or within its vicinity, an institution under the name of ‘The … That a Court of equity will decree the specific performance of a contract where the execution was prevented by fraud, is very clearly laid down in that case.

Friend v. Hamill

34 Md. 298 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Mar 3, 1871

The Act of 1867, ch. 329, the first general law abolishing the old and establishing the present admirable system of selecting jurors in the counties, was passed when there was but one Judge for each of the several circuits … The defendants here had before them the plaintiff’s name on the official list of qualified voters.

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.

Goertz v. McNally

185 Md. 170 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Nov 1, 1945

While the form of the issue as to partial invalidity is somewhat broader than the allegations of the second petition and caveat, the use of this form is supported by established practice. … This Court said: “The affidavit of the appellant upon which that motion was based, shows that the issue prayed in the Orphans’ Court was not a separate and independent issue, but one intended to change or qualify the issues

Wilson v. State

132 Md. App. 510 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jun 7, 2000

Jennifer Reynolds, Director of the Identity Laboratory at Cellmark, who was qualified as an expert in the application of forensic DNA testing. Dr. … Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 , 98 S.Ct. 2674 , 57 L.Ed.2d 667 (1978), to establish that the application for the warrant was tainted, or 3) an actual Franks hearing itself. In this case, it clearly is not the latter.

Bailey v. Atlantic Automotive Corp.

992 F. Supp. 2d 560 · District Court, D. Maryland · Jan 17, 2014

Legal Principles The Fourth Circuit has recognized “one narrow exception to the intracorporate immunity doctrine — the independent personal stake exception.” Am. Chiropractic Ass’n v. … The "intracorporate conspiracy doctrine” is also referred to as the "intracorporate immunity doctrine.” See Nilavar v. Mercy Health Sys.-W.

Quesenberry v. Green

District Court, D. Maryland · Jan 6, 2023

Dep't of Public Safety and Correctional Services, 926 F.3d 97, 100 (4th Cir. 2019) (“The Supreme Court ‘has drawn on principles of sovereign immunity to construe the Amendment to establish that an unconsenting State is … S. 715, 726 (1966). 5 I need not consider defendants’ additional defenses of qualified immunity and collateral estoppel.

Schochet v. State

75 Md. App. 314 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · May 19, 1988

There is, in other words, a lack of controlling precedent in this State clearly mandating one result or the other in this case. … But it has recognized that certain aspects of sexual relations between men and women are immune from governmental intrusion, absent some compelling, rational basis for *360 the intrusion.

Ashford v. State

147 Md. App. 1 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Sep 12, 2002

Miranda was clearly suffering disfavored status. Indeed, in Dickerson v. … The burden is not on the State to establish the presence of third persons; it is on the appellant to establish their absence.

Roberts v. United States

399 F. Supp. 2d 650 · District Court, D. Maryland · Oct 31, 2005

The magistrate judge sustained the objection on the basis that the statement was a self-serving one that did not qualify under any exception to the hearsay rule. … Parker, the Tenth Circuit held that although “[t]he odor of marijuana in the passenger compartment of a vehicle does not ..., standing alone, establish probable cause to search the trunk of the vehicle ..., an officer obtains