Case law

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

Northeast Community Organization, Inc. v. Weinberger

378 F. Supp. 1287 · District Court, D. Maryland · Jun 24, 1974

But the availability of review under the Administrative Procedure Act is necessarily limited to those administrative decisions which are “made without a rational explanation, inexplicably [depart] . . . from established policies … and was properly denied by HEW through the Commissioner of Education for Region III. *1293 First, the previously quoted language of § 1607(b) clearly provides that assistance is only given to NPOs for “programs or projects

McFadden v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority

District Court, D. Maryland · May 24, 2021

Establishment of WMATA and Evolution of Sovereign Immunity Doctrine Maryland, Virginia, and the District of Columbia created WMATA via an interstate compact (“the Compact”), so that WMATA would provide transportation … The Compact between the three governments established WMATA as an interstate agency and instrumentality of each signatory. Id. at 359.

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

Pearson v. State

182 Md. 1 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Apr 28, 1943

The law is also well established that before a photograph may be admitted in evidence it must have a testimonial sponsor — that is to say, it must first be made a part of some qualified person’s testimony and in this way … to what evidence would develop with reference to such collateral offenses. * * * The real test of admissibility is the connection of the fact proved with the offense charged, as evidence which has a natural tendency to establish

Chemical Bank New York Trust Co. v. Steamship Westhampton

231 F. Supp. 284 · District Court, D. Maryland · Jun 11, 1964

The bond was not registered under the Securities Act of 1933, because it was clearly exempt from registration as not “involving any public offering” within the meaning of sec. 4(1) of that Act. … The *291 evidence does not clearly establish that in 1920 10 or in 1962 11 the term “bond issue” was commonly understood either to include or to- exclude a private placement or private issue where there was only one bondholder

Stumpf v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance

252 Md. 696 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Mar 20, 1969

“The burden was on the insurer to establish the insured’s fraud or misrepresentation in an application for insurance, Sun Ins. Office v. … In our opinion, there was ample evidence to support the trial court’s findings, and we shall not hold that his findings were clearly erroneous — the test established by Maryland Rule 885 in considering findings of the facts

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.”

Howard v. Hobbs

125 Md. 636 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Apr 9, 1915

under consideration, and all similar cases, are placed upon the ground that *647 the transaction is exclusively between the creditor and debtor, and in view of all the circumstances that the intention of the creditor is clearly … It was attempted to be shown that in the year 1911 they did not treat her kindly, but that is not established and hence need not be discussed. The testimony of Mrs.

Chester Haven Beach Partnership v. Board of Appeals

103 Md. App. 324 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Feb 9, 1995

Ordinance clearly intended] that the character of the existing neighborhood was to be preserved____ Clearly, the Applicant envisions an apartment complex in an area where apartments do not exist. *337 The Board then noted … It recommended favorably that, which, if granted, would have been clearly illegal and arbitrary.

Cushman & Wakefield of Md., Inc. v. DRV Greentec, LLC

463 Md. 1 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Mar 4, 2019

The Court of Appeals AFFIRMED, holding that even if petitioners qualified as third-party beneficiaries, that only gave them the right to sue whomever was liable. … Finally, the court concluded that the plaintiffs had failed to establish the requisite elements of quantum meruit. The Court of Special Appeals affirmed for largely the reasons given by the Circuit Court.

Mayor of Baltimore v. Smith & Schwartz Brick Co.

80 Md. 458 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Feb 28, 1895

The jury is authorized by the ordinance to ascertain and\ decide on the amount of damages or benefits, clearly meaning that it can ascertain the amount of the one before it by appeal, but not of both, unless an appeal has … The burden was on the city to establish the benefits this property was to be charged with.

Logan v. Dietz

Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Aug 2, 2023

Clearly, RP § 11B-116 itself only authorizes a “homeowners association”—not individual unit owners—to amend a governing document with 60% approval. … As we have discussed, for Dietz and the other homeowners to rely on § 11B-116 of the Act, there had to be a qualifying homeowners association, which in turn required a qualifying declaration.

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.

Zhang v. Science & Technology Corp.

382 F. Supp. 2d 761 · District Court, D. Maryland · Aug 10, 2005

At that time, STC had no open positions for which Plaintiff was qualified and it determined that he would need to be laid off at the end of September. Id. … not established were a pretext for discrimination.

KANAI v. Geren

671 F. Supp. 2d 713 · District Court, D. Maryland · Nov 13, 2009

This, however, applies an unlawful standard, since an applicant is not required to be a pacifist in order to qualify for discharge as a conscientious objector. … to qualify for CO status.

Wilson v. Bull

97 Md. 128 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Apr 5, 1903

“it seems to be now established by numerous decisions that .the same rule of construction will be applied to the word ‘survivors’ as to any other. … Without discussing this exception it is sufficient to say that the question asked the witness even if relevant, was one which she did not show herself by her testimony qualified to answer. (Decided April 2nd, 1903.)

Baltimore Teachers Union v. Maryland State Board of Education

379 Md. 192 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jan 16, 2004

The General Assembly has clearly ratified the reconstitution regulations. *205 IV. … General Assembly to establish system of free public schools.

havePower, LLC v. General Electric Co.

256 F. Supp. 2d 402 · District Court, D. Maryland · Mar 31, 2003

In other words, if there clearly exist factual issues “that properly can be resolved only by a finder of fact because they may reasonably be resolved in favor of either party,” then summary judgment is inappropriate. … The fact that havePower fore *412 went pursuing other partnerships does not in and of itself establish that it suffered actual detriment. See Abt Assocs., Inc. v.