Case law

Nationwide Mutual Insurance v. Friedman

451 F. Supp. 736 · District Court, D. Maryland · May 26, 1978

Assuming arguendo that the documents at issue here could fall within this range of information, § 1905 does not qualify as an exemption 3 statute. … The documents in the instant case can only qualify for exemption as “similar files.”

Steever v. Bristol-Myers Co.

727 F. Supp. 986 · District Court, D. Maryland · Nov 6, 1989

The Plan Administrator determines if a participant qualifies as totally disabled. Defendant’s Exhibit A, Paragraphs 5.1, 6.1. … In light of the available evidence, this Court finds that the actions of the Plan were clearly supported by substantial evidence. Accordingly, the Court will not disturb the decision of the Administrator.

Bruno v. State

93 Md. App. 501 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Oct 1, 1992

Rizzo was the critical evidence establishing that what Micheltree told the pre-trial services officer was untrue or misleading. Ms. … This was clearly the intent of the parties, although from the actual recitation of what occurred, it appears that there was an agreement as to ultimate fact.

Vellone v. First Union Brokerage Services, Inc.

203 F.R.D. 231 · District Court, D. Maryland · Aug 30, 2001

Section 9-110(b) of the Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article of the Maryland Code establishes the parameters of the privilege in Maryland. … As an initial matter, the Maryland Court of Appeals has ruled that “a client may not immunize otherwise discoverable materials from the reach of another party by transferring possession of those materials to an accountant

Peterson v. State

15 Md. App. 478 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jun 29, 1972

The long procession of purchasers subsequently approaching that automobile and obtaining aluminum foil packets, characterized by Detective Snow as typically those used in the narcotics trade, clearly established the nature … For present purposes, however, the emphasis is upon the qualifying participial phrase “supported by the evidence.”

Ralli Bros. v. Isthmian S. S. Co.

35 F. Supp. 986 · District Court, D. Maryland · Dec 2, 1940

. *990 The owners of the damaged burlap have clearly established their claim against the Isthmian Steamship Company, and this is conceded by its counsel. … They were thoroughly experienced experts and well qualified to determine from personal observations the relatively simple matter as to whether the damaged planking was bulged outwards from the side of the lighter or staved

Balt. City Police Dept v. Potts

468 Md. 265 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Apr 24, 2020

This language does not establish a hard-and-fast rule. … Clearly, the factors concerning whether the actions are commonly done by the officers and the time, place, and purpose of the actions tilt in favor of establishing that the officers’ misconduct was authorized.

Deleon v. Fox

District Court, D. Maryland · Sep 5, 2025

The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit has also explained that the plaintiff bears the burden of establishing that subject-matter jurisdiction exists. Evans v. B.F. … Because the decisions and rulings of the Judicial Defendants related to the Peace Orders are clearly judicial acts that fall within the scope of their professional duties as judicial officers, the Plaintiff’s claims challenging

Sable v. Baltimore County Government

District Court, D. Maryland · Feb 22, 2021

Sable’s cardiac activity was re-established after nineteen minutes of CPR and seven doses of epinephrine. Id. Upon arrival at Bayview’s emergency department, Mr. … While Plaintiffs contend Defendants actions constitute ministerial acts, this Court finds that the Officer Defendants actions as alleged are clearly discretionary.

Bell Atlantic of Maryland, Inc. v. Intercom Systems Corporation

366 Md. 1 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Oct 10, 2001

There, the common law action would be conspiracy and the third party clearly couldn’t be brought before the PSC and this Court would have jurisdiction. … With the task of providing justice for consumers clearly set forth, the General Assembly enacted the Public Service Commission Law on April 5, 1910.

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.

Legore v. OneWest Bank, FSB

898 F. Supp. 2d 912 · District Court, D. Maryland · Oct 15, 2012

The letter also outlined the steps he would have to take in order to qualify for a permanent loan modification: namely, three months of trial period payments and submission of specified documentation verifying his income. … Because both negligence and negligent misrepresentation require the plaintiff to establish a duty of care, the Court addresses them together.

Bereslavsky v. Standard Oil Co. of New Jersey

82 F. Supp. 939 · District Court, D. Maryland · Feb 1, 1949

As the Solicitor General says in his brief with respect to the act, it is more than a waiver of immunity and effects an assumption of liability by the government.” (Emphasis supplied.) … Clearly, therefore, we have done precisely what the Supreme Court -said in Sperry Gyroscope Co. v.

Backus v. Presbyterian Ass'n

77 Md. 50 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jan 19, 1893

Effect must be given to every part of the will, if possible, consistently with the established principles of law; and we are not to assume that the testator did not understand the terms employed by him, or that he did not … But the general devise, and the absolute effect of the word “estate,” are both qualified by what follows.

Jaguar Land Rover North America, LLC v. Manhattan Imported Cars, Inc.

738 F. Supp. 2d 640 · District Court, D. Maryland · Sep 14, 2010

Here, the first two requirements are not disputed by the parties and are clearly met. Plaintiff has established an actual controversy, see Volvo Constr. Equip. North America, Inc. v. CLM Equip. … For a portion of the unpaid claims, Plaintiff has met its burden of establishing that Defendant is not entitled to relief.

Reynaldo Parado Rodriguez v. State

221 Md. App. 26 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jan 28, 2015

Clearly then, if appellant is not “required” to register under MSORA, he cannot be convicted of failing to register under CP 2010 § 11-721. … Clearly, the General Assembly had a legitimate regulatory purpose in enacting additional registration requirements for homeless registrants. See CP 2010 § 11-705(d).

Maryland Office of People's Counsel v. Maryland Public Service Commission

226 Md. App. 483 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jan 28, 2016

OPC’s second asserted grounds are nowhere near as clearly defined as the first. … -37- BGE had taken the position that each “asset class” qualified as a single “project.”

Gray v. State

368 Md. 529 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Apr 11, 2002

The State has the power to grant use immunity, which is not available to the defendant. … .) § 9-123 of the Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article (authorizing the State to grant use immunity to a witness compelled to testify in a criminal prosecution or before a Grand Jury).

Ellison v. State

65 Md. App. 321 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Mar 12, 1986

It is for the court to say whether his silence is justified, ... and to require him to answer if ‘it clearly appears to the court that he is mistaken.’ ... … C. *337 McCormick, Law of Evidence (1st ed. 1954), § 135, “Termination of Liability to Punishment: Immunity Statutes,” at 284, states: “If at the time of the claim of privilege, the liability of the witness to be convicted

Ley v. Forman

144 Md. App. 658 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jun 5, 2002

As a result, Maria must obtain her annual physical examinations and immunizations in Virginia. … It would be nonsensical to allow a child to remain in a special or private school after the parents’ separation only if he or she qualified for “special education” services.