Case law

Batson v. Shiflett

325 Md. 684 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Mar 12, 1992

However, a review of the Farmer Court’s discussion of this issue clearly establishes that the petitioners quoted Farmer out of context. … As the Court of Special Appeals recognized, this statement is not immunized merely because the charge is couched in conditional terms.

Lucas v. McBlair

12 G. & J. 1 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Dec 15, 1841

The difficulty of obtaining adequate redress in a court of law, is one of the well established grounds for resorting to a court of chancery; and more especially, where it may be necessary, in the pursuit of justice, to institute … Looking therefore in this case to the body of the act for the meaning of the Legislature, we think that their intention is too clearly expressed to admit of controversy; and that such intention was a total suppression in

Western Maryland Railroad v. Kehoe

83 Md. 434 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jun 17, 1896

on the siding, and it was obvious error, in view of the special exception taken to this.prayer and founded on the want of such evidence, to leave to the jury the finding of a fact which there was no evidence whatever to establish … And his right to use it at all was obviously qualified by an obligation on his part to exercise proper care himself in using it; and hence his right to use it with due care gave him no right to use it recklessly.

Tomas v. Tomas

34 Md. App. 79 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Dec 3, 1976

She testified at the hearing that this move was motivated by her desire to participate in a job training program (not then available in Maryland) which would eventually qualify her for a higher position with the Department … Tomas did not give up or lose her Maryland domicile since it *82 was not shown that she had established a new and different domicile. Absent such a showing, her domicile remains in Maryland.

Levin v. Hirschman

158 Md. 162 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jan 8, 1930

This contention, we think, is sound, and is the established rule in Maryland. Millers Eq. Proc., sec. 134, p. 172; Miller v. Baltimore Marble Co., 52 Md. 642 ; Dennison v. Yost, 61 Md. 139 ; Hogan v. … We are clearly of the opinion that the equity court has jurisdiction and full and ample power to determine all of the questions necessary to a complete distribution of the fund among those justly entitled.

Fox v. Harris

141 Md. 495 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jun 23, 1922

The difference between the responsibility for losses of conventional trustees appointed by the court, or acting under the jurisdiction of a court, and testamentary trustees, is clearly stated in Gilbert v. Kolb, supra. … Bearing this in mind, and taking into' consideration also the uncontradicted testimony as to the care they exercised in obtaining advice from those who should be best qualified to advise in regard to the value of securities

Deshields v. Dill

District Court, D. Maryland · Sep 13, 2022

immunity. … In effect, the Eleventh Amendment bars suits for damages against a state in federal court unless the state has waived sovereign immunity or Congress has abrogated its immunity. See Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v.

Morgan v. Coppin State University

District Court, D. Maryland · Nov 4, 2020

, since the proposed amendments would have also been dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6) on sovereign immunity grounds). … City of Greensboro, 855 F.3d 639, 648 (4th Cir. 2017) (explaining a plaintiff “need not plead facts sufficient to establish a prima facie case” for discrimination to meet the pleading standard established in Ashcroft

Pevia v. Warren, Warden

District Court, D. Maryland · Dec 14, 2021

The Eleventh Amendment did not create sovereign immunity. Rather, it preserved the sovereign immunity that the states enjoyed prior to the formation of the Union. See Alden v. … Hollander United States District Judge 7 Having found no constitutional violation, I need not consider defendants’ qualified immunity

Myers v. State

243 Md. App. 154 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Nov 6, 2019

The cash register was later determined to have been empty, but its own value was established to have been $500. … She clearly cannot be held to have been in error for not having been prescient. The appellant’s reasoning strays outside the clearly demarcated box. He does not turn square corners.

Domingues v. Johnson

323 Md. 486 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Aug 21, 1991

We hold, however, that the chancellor incorrectly accepted the recommendations of the master upon a finding that those recommendations were not clearly erroneous, instead of subjecting the master’s fact-finding to a clearly … The [mother] and her husband are making every effort to establish their family to the exclusion of the [father]. 5.

United States v. The Pietro Campanella

41 F. Supp. 656 · District Court, D. Maryland · Oct 22, 1941

I clearly understood counsel for the Government to concur in this understanding of the effect of the Act of 1941. … , it has priority over or is subject to the claims for a right of forfeiture asserted by the United States, if established.

Kirchner v. Caughey

326 Md. 567 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · May 13, 1992

In Domingues , we remanded the case for further consideration by the chancellor because the wording of his order suggested he had accepted the master’s recommendations upon a finding that they were not *572 clearly erroneous … Ulger expressed a qualified concern about the child attending church services with the father.

Dinneen v. Rider

152 Md. 343 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Feb 11, 1927

The seeming conflict betweeen these two articles can be harmonized by accepting the later article as qualifying the earlier article by restricting its operation to those laws not within the purview of article 16. … assessment for an amount not in excess of the cost of the improvement thus imposed at fifteen cents a front foot, amounting to an annual charge of $92.55 for a period of forty years on a property assessed at $8,775.00, is SO' clearly

Old Republic Insurance v. Gordon

228 Md. App. 1 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Apr 27, 2016

Gordon cannot establish any of the elements of equitable estoppel because it made no representation to her, she did not rely on any representation from Old Republic, and she was not harmed by any representation from Old Republic … The record reflects, however, that Old Republic clearly and consistently advised the circuit court that its claim against Ms. Gordon was based on its subrogation rights. The argument is not waived. .

Wilson v. State

241 Md. App. 683 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jul 30, 2019

Rather, it appears to pertain to anyone who qualifies as a “spouse,” without regard to the motive for the marriage. … In affirming the trial court, the Alaska Supreme Court held that, “the spousal testimonial immunity privilege is capable of being relaxed under Criminal Rule 53.” Id.

Kearns v. Kearns

78 Md. App. 461 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Mar 2, 1989

The monetary award of $12,500.00 was to be paid by Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) from appellant’s tax-deferred savings plan (TDSP) and his employee stock option plan (ESOP) which the court valued at $22,173.70 … Any conduct or language that clearly indicates such an intent will suffice. See, e.g., Carsey v. Carsey, 67 Md.App. 544 [ 508 A.2d 533 ].

Blaine v. Blaine

97 Md. App. 689 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Oct 27, 1993

The fundamental importance of Thomasian lies not in it providing an example of a situation not qualifying as a change in circumstance; indeed, neither of the parties in Thomasian alleged any such change existed. … We cannot say this finding was clearly erroneous or an abuse of judicial discretion. B.

In Re Adoption/Guardianship Nos. J9610436 & J9711031

368 Md. 666 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Apr 16, 2002

(Sec.5-313(d)(1)(v)(3) This law clearly establishes that the relevant standard in TPR proceedings is to be by “clear and convincing evidence” and what is in “the best interest of the child.” … Hardesty was specifically qualified as an expert in developmental disabilities. .

Nelley v. Mayor of Baltimore

224 Md. 1 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Dec 15, 1960

As to the first question it is established that the parties to a contract may provide for the submission of disputes with respect to the contract to an arbitrator who is an official or representative of one of the parties … that the Arbitration Clause was broad enough to include disputes involving claims of concealment or misrepresentation in the inducement of the substantive contract; that the referee designated as such in the contract was qualified