Case law

Smiley v. State

216 Md. App. 1 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jan 29, 2014

Proof of an excited utterance, for instance, does not demand a psychiatrist to establish distraught emotion clearly and convincingly nor does a dying declaration insist on a priest administering last rites to establish … Employing that deference, we cannot say that Judge Jackson's findings were clearly erroneous or that his ruling was an abuse of discretion.

Attorney Grievance Commission v. Seltzer

424 Md. 94 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Dec 22, 2011

to respond to the Piper-Brandon complaint, established he had violated Rule 8.1(b). … That Seltzer engaged in deceitful conduct outside of the practice of law does not immunize the sanctionable nature of his behavior. See, e.g., Attorney Grievance v.

Doe v. Community College of Baltimore County

District Court, D. Maryland · Mar 30, 2022

In my view, Count II is clearly the more appropriate vehicle to address plaintiffs’ negligence claim. … Ohio Oct. 7, 2020) (“The law is clearly established that colleges and universities do not stand in loco parentis. . . .”); Ginsburg v. City of Ithaca, 839 F.

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.

Jackson v. State

190 Md. App. 497 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Feb 4, 2010

State, 189 Md.App. 653 , 985 A.2d 175 (2009) (“It is well established that an alert to a vehicle by a qualified drug-sniffing dog furnishes probable cause to perform a warrantless search of the vehicle.”). … We hold that that finding was not clearly erroneous. Bleib!

Fleetwood v. Harford Systems Inc.

380 F. Supp. 2d 688 · District Court, D. Maryland · Mar 4, 2005

Clearly certain functions could be performed in a different manner — that is the essence of a reasonable accommodation. … A plaintiff must prove the following to establish a hostile work environment claim: (1)' he is a qualified individual with a disability; (2) he was subjected to unwelcome harassment; (3) the harassment was based on his disability

Ziemkiewicz v. R + L Carriers, Inc.

996 F. Supp. 2d 378 · District Court, D. Maryland · Feb 6, 2014

. § 391.23 (Z) and state statutory and common law qualified privileges). Thus, each separate privilege is a separate issue. … The evidence in the record establishes that it was the Plaintiff who showed the June 30, 2011 letter indicating a positive drug test to Michael Schnabel, his supervisor at UPS.

In the Matter of Boyce Living Trust

Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jul 9, 2025

Section 14.5-605, therefore, provides permanent immunity for those defendants through the implementation of the time bar by requiring parties to file within the defined period. … THE CIRCUIT COURT DID NOT CLEARLY CONSIDER THE REQUEST FOR ASSUMPTION OF JURISDICTION. Appellants contend that “[t]he circuit court also erred in dismissing petitioners’ request for an accounting . . .

Brown v. County Commissioners

338 Md. 286 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · May 17, 1995

The parties do not dispute that Brown did not qualify for benefits under MA for the dental treatment. … First, the language of the federal regulation does not appear *301 to clearly exclude pretrial detainees from coverage.

Gardner v. Montgomery County Teachers Federal Credit Union

864 F. Supp. 2d 410 · District Court, D. Maryland · Jun 4, 2012

Republic of Sudan, 461 F.3d 461 , 468 n. 2 (4th Cir.2006) (discussing burden in context of sovereign immunity defense) (citation omitted). … For a security interest to qualify for the exception under § 226.12(d)(2) the following conditions must be met: i.

Bethea v. Mason

384 F. Supp. 1274 · District Court, D. Maryland · Nov 27, 1974

Maryland’s Unemployment Insurance Law provides that an individual does not qualify for unemployment insurance benefits if he is discharged for “gross misconduct” or if it is determined that “his unemployment is due to a stoppage … Such a father is clearly not employed.

Eiland v. State

92 Md. App. 56 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Oct 8, 1992

To be sure, it did not establish his criminal agency. … A pattern clearly was present.

Unitas v. Temple

74 Md. App. 506 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Apr 5, 1988

This finding of fact, which clearly establishes the requisite degree of part performance, may not be tampered with unless clearly erroneous. Rule 1086. … Appellant, however, argues that “[t]he evidence does not establish clearly and convincingly the certain and unambiguous terms of the contract.”

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.

St. Agnes Hospital of the City of Baltimore, Inc. v. Riddick

751 F. Supp. 75 · District Court, D. Maryland · Nov 15, 1990

Agnes’ residents can still qualify for medical licensing if St. Agnes’ program is equivalent to those established by ACGME. St. … Clearly, ensuring appropriate training of medical residents is vital to the public interest. If a residency program fails to adequately train its residents, the health of the public may be at risk.

MacPhail v. Comptroller

178 Md. App. 115 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Feb 4, 2008

issue as “whether the Comptroller sustains his burden under the Maryland Public—[sic] for acts under the Maryland Public Information Act to deny my request since the Maryland Legislature at [MPIA § 10—617(f)(2) & (3) ] clearly … Courts have held that § 6103 of the Internal Revenue Code, cited above, qualifies as a statute that comes within the nondisclosure provisions of § 552(b)(3) of the FOIA. See e.g., Landmark Legal Foundation v.

Wiggins v. State

275 Md. 689 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Sep 5, 1975

It *693 recommended “an enabling amendment to empower the Legislature to establish a Juvenile Court in Baltimore City.” … The Bond Commission was of the opinion that in order to avoid the multiplication of courts a juvenile court in Baltimore City should be a branch of the Supreme Bench and that a judge of that bench qualified for such work

Nutramax Laboratories, Inc. v. Twin Laboratories, Inc.

32 F. Supp. 2d 331 · District Court, D. Maryland · Feb 1, 1999

He cannot reasonably claim that the Fifth Amendment gives him not only this choice but, if he elects to testify, and immunity from cross-examination on the matters he has himself put in dispute. … Significantly, Life Extension provides no legal support for this temporal distinction and the Court finds that it is not an established principle of the law of privilege.

Eger v. Stone

253 Md. 533 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · May 15, 1969

Morton Thomas, a well-qualified land planner, civil engineer and land surveyor, who had testified previously before both the Board and the Montgomery County Council as an expert land planning consultant, who testified that … Raker was clearly admissible in evidence and *543 was of sufficient credibility and probative force to support, at least, Mr.

Marlow, Infant v. Davis

227 Md. 204 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Dec 12, 1961

Furthermore, since the smaller originals—which would seem to be the better evidence on behalf of the plaintiffs—were received as evidence, the plaintiffs were clearly not prejudiced. … And, on redirect, the plaintiffs not only established the fact (not previously shown) that the officer was fully qualified to testify as an expert, but, by having the witness further testify in detail as to braking distances