Case law

Town of New Market v. Milrey, Inc.-FDI Partnership

90 Md. App. 528 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Feb 28, 1992

The statute deferred to procedures for borrowing money as established in municipal charters when those procedures differed from those provided in the statute. … The facts here are clearly distinguishable. JUDGMENT AFFIRMED. COSTS TO BE PAID BY APPELLANT.

Insurance Commissioner of the State v. Metropolitan Life Insurance

296 Md. 334 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Aug 5, 1983

The claims were for psychotherapy services rendered by qualified social workers to whom the employees had been referred by their physicians. … The court then reasoned ( 410 A.2d at 640 ): "Furthermore, insurance laws which do not 'relate to’ employee welfare plans are clearly not affected by the general superseding provisions of § 1144 (a), and therefore do not

Bruette v. Montgomery County, Maryland

197 F. Supp. 2d 354 · District Court, D. Maryland · Mar 26, 2002

None of these facts, of course, establish that plaintiffs did possess an unlawful intent. … Thus, he would be entitled to a defense of qualified immunity under federal law. Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 816 , 102 S.Ct. 2727 , 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982). "The good or evil intentions of ...

United States v. Sauls

981 F. Supp. 909 · District Court, D. Maryland · Oct 8, 1997

Under Maryland law, a breathalyzer test in connection with a prosecution for. driving while intoxicated or while under the influence must be administered by a “qualified person.” A qualified person is defined in Md. … In addition, a number of jurisdictions, including the three jurisdictions that have not established a per se level, have established presumptive levels. Also, some jurisdictions have established two presumptive levels.

Parkville Federal Savings Bank v. Maryland National Bank

343 Md. 412 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Aug 29, 1996

These kinds of problems can be avoided by requiring that writs of garnishment clearly and unambiguously identify on their face the judgment debtors to which they apply. … Banking institutions have immunity from liability for impounding property claimed by a third party, but only when that property is impounded pursuant to a court order.

James G. Davis Construction Corp. v. Erie Insurance Exchange

226 Md. App. 25 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Oct 28, 2015

The Policy provides that “[t]he word ‘insured’ means any person or organization qualifying as such under Section II - Who Is An Insured.” … Rather, “the terms of an insurance contract are to be interpreted utilizing well-established principles that guide the interpretation of contracts generally.” Kendall v. Nationwide Ins.

Dove v. Armstead

District Court, D. Maryland · Nov 4, 2019

Warden Armstead also raises a defense of qualified immunity. This too is unavailing. Mr. … Dove’s right to avail himself of the administrative remedy procedure without retaliatory action being taken against him was clearly established as of May 25, 2018, the date of his transfer. See Booker v. S.

Gelin v. Baltimore County, State of Maryland

District Court, D. Maryland · Jan 27, 2025

The Maryland Supreme Court has reasoned “that the purpose of these provisions ‘was to codify existing public official immunity, and not to extend the scope of qualified immunity beyond its Maryland common law boundaries … policies that they claim represent ministerial conduct, In addition to the above examples and supporting exhibits, Plaintiffs reason that “(Jail officials carry out specific acts that are incumbent upon them through established

Potomac Construction Company, Inc. v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority

District Court, D. Maryland · Apr 16, 2021

Here too, Plaintiff’s argument that Sections 73 and 81 of the Compact establish a waiver of the Authority’s sovereign immunity must fail. … cannot establish a waiver of WMATA’s sovereign immunity for such actions.

Best v. Best

93 Md. App. 644 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Oct 7, 1992

Clearly, she is authorized to do so. … The decisions in Domingues and Kirchner reinforce the well-established principle that it is ultimately the chancellor’s decision which “significantly impacts upon the lives of the parents and children involved.”

Horning v. Hardy

36 Md. App. 419 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jun 10, 1977

In the case here being considered, there is one further *429 complicating factor: the assertion of a qualified privilege by the appellees. … Rule 1086 requires that in a case tried below without a jury that we not set aside a judgment of the lower court on the evidence unless we find the trial court clearly erroneous.

Wolfinger v. Frey

223 Md. 184 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jul 18, 1960

The rules with regard to such questions have been well established. … A general practitioner who was not a specialist was held qualified to testify as a medical expert in Annapolis Gas & Elec. Lt. Co. v.

Barthelmes v. Morris

342 F. Supp. 153 · District Court, D. Maryland · Jun 29, 1972

Plaintiffs clearly have standing to sue, a fact conceded by defendants. The test, as announced by the Court in Baker v. … In Maryland, that interest is expressly reflected by laws establishing the machinery for elections and the qualifications and other requirements for candidates in the May 16 election.

Government of the United Kingdom v. Northstar Services, Ltd.

1 F. Supp. 2d 521 · District Court, D. Maryland · Feb 6, 1998

A course of dealing between the United Kingdom and Panalpina has been established in this case. … This practice occurred more than 100 times with Pan-alpina Baltimore prior to the accident on April 1, 1993, clearly establishing a “course of dealing.”

Harrison v. Preston Trucking Co.

201 F. Supp. 654 · District Court, D. Maryland · Jan 23, 1962

Typical of the authorities establishing these basic rules are Walling v. General Industries Co., 330 U.S. 545 , 67 S.Ct. 883 , 91 L.Ed. 1088 (1947); Aulen v. … The many adjudicated cases also establish that each case presents primarily a question largely factual in nature.

Jones v. State

410 Md. 681 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Sep 22, 2009

Petitioner concedes that the State’s evidence was sufficient to establish that he committed those offenses in Aberdeen, Maryland on December 23, 2004. … We apply the “clearly erroneous” standard of review to that factual finding.

Gill v. Staylor

93 Md. 453 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jun 13, 1901

This is a case, we think, of qualifying, not contradictory, prayers. Rosenstock v. Ortwine, 46 Md. 400 ; P. W. & B. R. R. v. Larkin, 47 Md. 166 . … This was clearly error. Balt. Elevator Co. v. Neal, 65 Md. 457 .

Seignious v. Baltimore County Department of Corrections

District Court, D. Maryland · Dec 5, 2022

They further maintain that any threats made against Plaintiff are not a viable basis for a constitutional claim and that they are entitled to qualified immunity.3 Id. at 5-9. … Dep’t 3 Because this Court finds that Plaintiff’s constitutional claims fail for the reasons stated herein, Defendants’ qualified immunity claim is not addressed. of Soc.

State v. Sewell

463 Md. 291 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Apr 2, 2019

Amanda Sewell was also charged in the death of Luke, but was granted immunity by the State and compelled to testify. … A court performs an objective analysis, and based on such, clearly the privilege does not attach to communications relating to child abuse.

Royal v. Kirschling

District Court, D. Maryland · Apr 13, 2020

of a constitutional right, the court does not discuss qualified immunity. … “To establish a violation of either statute, plaintiffs must prove ‘(1) they have a disability; (2) they are otherwise qualified to receive the benefits of a public service, program, or activity; and (3) they were denied