Case law

Eldridge v. State

329 Md. 307 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Feb 10, 1993

In addition, once you were in the premises, it’s at that time that you pulled that weapon out and put it to the head of the victim and clearly established an intent to injure that victim. … The evidence clearly established that the charges here arose from one incident and that only one weapon was involved.

Slack v. Truitt

368 Md. 2 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Feb 12, 2002

The court began its analysis with a restatement of the “well established [rule] that a regular and complete attestation clause makes out a prima facie case of due execution of the will.” Id. … Id. at 453. *16 The reasoning behind these cases is that if subscribing witnesses were required to recollect all the formalities prescribed by statutory requirements, few wills would be immune to attack, particularly after

Crisantos v. Moubarek

District Court, D. Maryland · Dec 21, 2020

waived its immunity to suit. … The plaintiff must submit with the claim “a certificate of qualified expert . . .

Stevens v. Baltimore HUD Field Office

District Court, D. Maryland · Feb 28, 2024

As the Defendant correctly observes, the doctrine of sovereign immunity removes subject-matter jurisdiction from the Court for suits against the United States, unless the United States has clearly, expressly, and unambiguously … Act’s (“APA”) limited waiver of sovereign immunity.

Livingston v. Safe Deposit & Trust Co.

157 Md. 492 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · May 24, 1929

, by filing his approved bond therein, qualified in that court as trustee of that estate. … In respect to the second proposition it has been said: “Except, as altered by the statute 1 Viet., ch. 26, secs. 32 and 33, no rule respecting testamentary dispositions is more clearly established, than that by the death

Ewell v. State

207 Md. 288 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · May 17, 1955

The Court continued: “And in our opinion the principles so stated are not only established by our decisions, but are entirely consonant with reason and the best considered authority elsewhere.” … That obligation cannot be so qualified.

United States v. Sherwood Distilling Co.

235 F. Supp. 776 · District Court, D. Maryland · Oct 8, 1964

within twelve months of final settlement of Aetna’s obligation under the bond affect the proposed supplemental cross-claim should leave otherwise be granted to permit its filing, and the fact of such payments was later established … Aetna Casualty and Surety Company apply, at the most the reinsurers would be necessary parties but clearly not indispensable parties ( 338 U.S. at 382 , 70 S.Ct. at 216 ).

State v. Savage

170 Md. App. 149 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Sep 8, 2006

It is clear, at least, that the lower courts are allowing colorable knock-and-announce suits to go forward, unimpeded by assertions of qualified immunity. … “[T]he threat of litigation and liability will adequately deter federal officers for Bivens purposes no matter that they may enjoy qualified immunity” (as violators of knock-and-announce do not). 126 S.Ct. at 2167 , 165 L.Ed

County Commissioners of Charles County v. ST. CHARLES ASSOCIATES LTD.

366 Md. 426 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Nov 8, 2001

Judge Davidson, writing for the Court of Special Appeals, clearly recognized our holdings in the “restriction” case of Metius v. … Therefore, if a provision of the 1989 Agreement might not qualify as a covenant running with the land for the purpose of section 1.1, section 1.3 could sweep-up such non-qualifying provision as an otherwise transferable or

Scott v. State

1 Md. App. 481 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jul 18, 1967

It is clear therefore that Art. 27, § 551 intended only to enlarge the number and types of persons qualified to serve and return search and seizure warrants. … The memorandum was clearly proper for use to refresh the recollection of the witness. Basoff v. State, 208 Md. 643, 652 ; Burgess v. State, 161 Md. 162, 169 ; Myers v. State, 137 Md. 496, 502 . 4.

Lavin v. Safeco Insurance Company of America

District Court, D. Maryland · Nov 30, 2022

, since the proposed amendments would have also been dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6) on sovereign immunity grounds). … would run contrary to the Fourth Circuit’s well-established “policy to liberally allow amendment in keeping with the spirit of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a),” Galustian, 591 F.3d at 729.

Hughes' Case

1 Md. Ch. 46 · High Court of Chancery of Maryland · Apr 11, 1825

Hence, it clearly follows, that in all cases of this kind, even where the courts of common law and of equity have concurrent jurisdiction; the law and course of proceeding of the forum resorted to must be pursued. … and has, in part, prescribed the manner in which such partition may be obtained; and, consequently, so far this court must act according to the prescribed mode; but,- in all other respects, it must be governed by its own established

Huynh v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority

District Court, D. Maryland · Sep 23, 2024

P. 12(c) and 56, upon the grounds that: (1) Plaintiff’s negligence claim based upon a failure to provide adequate security and protection is barred by the doctrine of sovereign immunity and (2) Plaintiff cannot establish … Lastly, to the extent that Plaintiff could establish that WMATA owed him a duty, the undisputed material facts show that the Plaintiff cannot establish that WMATA breached any duty owed to him.

United States v. Moreno-Aguilar

198 F. Supp. 3d 548 · District Court, D. Maryland · Aug 2, 2016

To determine whether an offense is a “crime of violence” under 18 U.S.C. § 924 (c)(3), courts use the “categorical approach” established in Taylor v. … term “violent felony under the residual clause of 18 U.S.C. § 924 (e)(2)(B)(ii) *555 had a long and tortured history in the Supreme Court prior to Johnson, which was the Court’s fifth and final attempt to articulate more clearly

Hunt v. Califano

445 F. Supp. 624 · District Court, D. Maryland · Nov 30, 1977

Karpers, Jr. on November 14, 1973, the plaintiff received qualifying values of 2.0/2.1 FEVi and 68 L./min. MW. (Tr. 16). Dr. H. … Although the plaintiff again established qualifying FEVl and MW values, he concedes that the SSA consultant and the ALJ correctly found that this test did not comply with the testing standards of 20 C.F.R. § 410.430 .

White v. State

419 Md. 265 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Apr 27, 2011

Before trial, the Circuit Court granted Henrickson’s motion to dismiss the complaint on the basis of qualified immunity. … Charles Key, who was qualified as an expert in “police training, protocol and procedures[,] including high-speed pursuit and dispatch communications!]

Millar v. Bowie

115 Md. App. 682 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jun 2, 1997

A “different” straight line is clearly not what the parties intended. … But here, there is a fixed ulterior object, a tree imperatively called for and designated as the boundary intended to be run to ... explaining and qualifying the expressions “running with the said manor,” ... as directory

Carey v. Safe Deposit & Trust Co.

168 Md. 501 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Apr 12, 1935

Carey, Jr., was appointed administrator of the estate of his father, and .duly qualified. On the 9th day of February, 1933, George G. … dispense at pleasure with its own rules, or to innovate upon established practice.

Professional Maintenance Systems, Inc. v. Preload, LLC

District Court, D. Maryland · Sep 21, 2022

, since the proposed amendments would have also been dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6) on sovereign immunity grounds). … would run contrary to the Fourth Circuit’s well-established “policy to liberally allow amendment in keeping with the spirit of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a),” Galustian, 591 F.3d at 729.

RaceRedi Motorsports, LLC v. Dart MacHinery, Ltd.

640 F. Supp. 2d 660 · District Court, D. Maryland · Jul 16, 2009

Under the rule first established by the Supreme Court in Klaxon v. Stentor Elec. Mfg. … Pursuant to this definition, RaceRedi’s argument for dismissal on the grounds that the information does not qualify as a trade secret proves baseless.