Case law

Corbitt v. Baltimore Police Department

District Court, D. Maryland · Aug 10, 2021

The Defendants in this case clearly present a facial challenge and accordingly “must show that [the] complaint fails to allege facts upon which subject matter can be predicated.” Amador v. Mnuchin, 476 F. … Public official immunity is qualified—it does not apply to acts of gross negligence or those made with “malice.” See Cherkes, 780 A.2d at 420 (citing Town of Port Deposit v. Petetit, 688 A.2d 54, 60 (Md. Ct. Spec.

Mayor of Baltimore v. Smith

168 Md. 458 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Apr 3, 1935

Disregarding those employments which are clearly not hazardous, but which the Legislature has plainly included as a matter of policy, the remaining enumerated employments must be examined to ascertain the criteria by which … At the close of this course, she became qualified as a practical nurse, and remained in the service of the municipality at the hospital as a pupil or unregistered practical nurse until the happening of the acci *464 dent.

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.

In re Williams' Estate

16 F. Supp. 909 · District Court, D. Maryland · Nov 14, 1936

In the afternoon of the same day upon submission of the papers to the court, the respondent was adjudicated a bankrupt; and in due course thereafter a trustee was elected and has qualified and is now seeking to enjoin the … The testimony established clearly enough that there is a substantial equity in the real estate over and *912 above the amount of the mortgage indebtedness.

Ben Porto & Son, LTC v. Montgomery Cnty.

Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jul 9, 2024

The first factor—the label given by the legislature—clearly weighs in favor of this conclusion. … The WQPC is not imposed upon Porto solely because it owns land but rather because of Porto’s use of that land, which is “only one of the many incidents which make up the bundle of rights, powers, privileges and immunities

Edwards v. State

Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Oct 31, 2025

In the case now before us, the appellant was clearly the aggressor. … The appellant, however, never established anything in that regard. He simply took prejudice for granted. He utterly failed to establish how he had been harmed in any respect.

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).

Doe v. Maryland State Board of Elections

428 Md. 596 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Sep 25, 2012

The Act establishes new categories of individuals who may be eligible for in-state tuition rates at community colleges and public four-year colleges and universities in Maryland. … if this Court interprets the appropriation exception as the Appellants request, then every legislation which has some future potential impact on an appropriation would fit under this exception, even when the purpose is clearly

Anaweck v. State

63 Md. App. 239 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · May 17, 1985

It was clearly inferable that the suspect house was the home of Edward and Lena Anaweck. … A defense which, albeit good trial advocacy perhaps, hardly qualifies the appellant Edward Anaweck, under the circumstances of this case, as "Husband, Father, or Grandfather of the Year.”

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).

Costa v. State

58 Md. App. 474 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Apr 11, 1984

Evidence established that although the appellant failed to keep his appointment with Ms. … Discussion of Law It is important to note initially that when a wrongdoer has been given the opportunity to keep his freedom by being placed on probation, that personal privilege is by no means a blanket grant of immunity

Thomas v. Saul

District Court, D. Maryland · Dec 7, 2020

A “waiver of sovereign immunity must be unequivocally expressed in statutory text,” and be “clearly evident from the language of the statute.” FAA v. … I shall grant leave to amend, due within 28 days of the date of this Order, to include allegations that would, if true, establish subject matter jurisdiction.

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.”

Bissell v. Reno

74 F. Supp. 2d 521 · District Court, D. Maryland · Nov 16, 1999

Because she has not established a prima facie case, “it is unnecessary to address the question of reasonable accommodation.” Id.; see Williams v. … Clearly, employee morale is not an adequate basis for refusing a reasonable accommodation to a disabled employee qualified to perform the essential functions of a position. 29 C.F.R. § 1630.15 (d) appendix. 16 .

Harrison v. Clark

95 Md. 308 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jun 17, 1902

It is not the duty in this State of an administrator pendente lite to conduct at the expense of the estate a litigation to establish an alleged will of the decedent or to defend caveats to papers purporting to be wills. … Now one of the appellants was clearly within the description contained in that section as *314 he was the executor named in the will of latest date, and the other appellant was not only the husband of the decedent’s sister

Andrews v. Baltimore City Police Department

District Court, D. Maryland · Mar 19, 2025

In a different procedural posture, however, this Court would have granted summary judgment without reaching the constitutional question because no clearly established law barred the Officer Defendants’ conduct in 2014 … , so they are entitled to qualified immunity.

Estate of Steiner

Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jul 28, 2022

Nor is an attestation clause required in order to establish the presumption of due execution. … The Court in Slack reasoned: “[I]f subscribing witnesses were required to recollect all the formalities prescribed by statutory 18 requirements, few wills would be immune to

Brightwell v. Gang

District Court, D. Maryland · Dec 1, 2021

immunity. … immunity is not necessary.

Poole v. State

207 Md. App. 614 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Sep 26, 2012

There is no dispute that the State of Maryland qualifies as “a party that is not a natural person.” … Nothing in this conduct qualifies as solicitation to engage in sexual activity.

Jarrell v. State

36 Md. App. 371 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jun 9, 1977

“The ultimate test remains that which has been the only clearly established test in Anglo-American courts for two hundred years: the test of voluntariness. … 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 ....