Case law

Attorney General of Maryland v. Waldron

289 Md. 683 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Mar 13, 1981

Tribe at 1090. 16 To date, this group clearly encompasses gender discriminations, e.g., Caban v. Mohammed, 441 U.S. 380 , 99 S. Ct. 1760 , 60 L. Ed. 2d 297 (1979); Craig v. … is required for the protection of the public health, safety, or morals ... is settled, it may not exercise that power arbitrarily or capriciously, or in such a manner as to deprive the individual of rights, privileges, immunities

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 .

Smelkinson SYSCO v. Harrell

162 Md. App. 437 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jun 2, 2005

Harrell” and that SYSCO “was clearly seeking an end to it fully and finally.” … Accordingly, [it]t is well established in Maryland that a valid settlement agreement between the parties is binding upon them.

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.

White v. Caterpillar Tractor Co.

235 Md. 368 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jun 29, 1964

However, in the case at bar, there are additional factors which, when considered as a whole, clearly indicate that Caterpillar was in fact doing business in Maryland. … I see no reason why this Court should depart from its established views as to what constitutes doing business, simply because the Supreme Court of the United States has limited the constitutional immunity from suit once afforded

Haughie v. Wexford Health Sources, Inc.

District Court, D. Maryland · Mar 9, 2020

And, courts have found municipal liability appropriate in the absence of a finding of individual officer liability under § 1983 where the individual officers are entitled to qualified immunity. … But here, the defense of qualified immunity has not been asserted by the Individual Medical Defendants.

Greenspring Racquet Club, Inc. v. Baltimore County

77 F. Supp. 2d 699 · District Court, D. Maryland · Nov 30, 1999

Because the County’s motion to dismiss was granted on all counts, the County was clearly the prevailing party here. … Clearly, as the defendant’s attorneys, Cook, Beverungen and Barn-hart are not entitled to an upward adjustment.

Brown v. Brown

195 Md. App. 72 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Sep 30, 2010

We review the court’s factual findings under the clearly erroneous standard. Id. … Appellant’s counsel stipulated that Owens was qualified to give an opinion as to the value of the Notley Road property. 10 .

Md.-Nat'l Cap. P. & P. v. MONT. CTY.

267 Md. 82 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Nov 16, 1972

In each of those cases where the appeal was allowed, the appellant clearly fell within the language of the statute. … Indeed, appellant's contention, if pursued to its logical conclusion, could mean that every planning expert testifying before the Board of Appeals might qualify as a party for appeal purposes.

Contracts Materials Processing, Inc. v. Kataleuna GmbH Catalysts

164 F. Supp. 2d 520 · District Court, D. Maryland · Sep 18, 2001

Contrary to CMP’s assertions, the Technology Transfer Agreement clearly and unambiguously expresses the parties’ intentions and obligations. … However, CMP has failed to generate any evidence demonstrating that the Technology qualifies as a trade secret under the Act.

Macgill v. Hyatt

80 Md. 253 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Dec 18, 1894

The executor named in the will, after duly qualifying, died without having fully or at all administered the estate. … But we are not willing to sanction the rule of practice which is sought to be established by the case of Tessier v.

Eberly v. Eberly

12 Md. App. 117 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · May 28, 1971

However, the general rule as to the wife’s right to share equally in the income from property held as tenants by the entirety has been qualified by the Court of Appeals in particular circumstances. Thus in Wardrop v. … We cannot say that his discretion was arbitrarily used or his judgment clearly wrong.

Maryland-National Capital Park & Planning Commission v. Friendship Heights

57 Md. App. 69 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jan 6, 1984

Clearly, M-NCPPC is aggrieved thereby and has the requisite standing to appeal from this adverse decision. The trial court properly so held. … Clearly, Sec. 49-57 cannot be read to establish such an intent. 2. Friendship alleges that the agency considered the sector plan as being inflexible, thereby requiring the extension of Friendship Boulevard.

Gordon v. Holy Cross Hosp. Germantown, Inc.

385 F. Supp. 3d 472 · District Court, D. Maryland · May 29, 2019

The burden is first on the plaintiff to establish a prima facie case of discrimination. Id. … "The similarity between comparators and the seriousness of their respective offenses must be clearly established in order to be meaningful." Lightner v. City of Wilmington, N.C. , 545 F.3d 260 , 265 (4th Cir. 2008).

Smith v. Humphreys

104 Md. 285 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Nov 15, 1906

If that be so, then she was called upon to establish such an agreement as could be specifically enforced. To say the least, Mrs. … But regardless of those questions, we are satisfied that the evidence fails to establish the fact that Mr.

State v. Walker

345 Md. 293 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Apr 10, 1997

Because that issue—the secondary inquiry—had not been clearly raised or decided in the circuit court, the Court of Special Appeals made no ruling on it. Citing Foster v. … admission under the categorical exception, it would clearly qualify under the residual exception.

Patten v. Board of Liquor License Commissioners

107 Md. App. 224 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Nov 30, 1995

Accordingly, the circuit court’s decision to change a factual finding of the Board was clearly erroneous and not supported by the record. … There are two ways to establish an agency relationship, either by written agreement or by inference. Id.