Case law

Mullinix v. Mullinix

12 Md. App. 402 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jun 28, 1971

For this reason the court has established certain principles for better application of the legal standard to the facts at hand. … been applied; we feel obliged to follow the established rule.

Sammons v. McCarty

District Court, D. Maryland · Mar 11, 2025

She then separately determined that Defendants were entitled to qualified immunity as to the video disruption because Plaintiff “[did] not point to any case law that indicates he had a clearly established right to transmit … “[O]fficers are entitled to qualified immunity under § 1983 unless (1) they violated a federal statutory or constitutional right, and (2) the unlawfulness of their conduct was ‘clearly established at the time.’”

Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance v. Maryland Yacht Club, Inc.

129 Md. App. 455 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Dec 10, 1999

STANDARD OF REVIEW Maryland Rule 2-501 establishes a two-part test for summary judgment. … Indeed, the lower court was clearly cognizant of the Policy’s terms.

Gaines v. Baltimore City, Maryland

District Court, D. Maryland · May 9, 2022

Rather, a plaintiff must only show that he was qualified for the job and that he was meeting his employer’s legitimate expectations.” Haynes v. … established in order to be meaningful.’”

Herbert v. State

136 Md. App. 458 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Feb 2, 2001

Proximity could not be more clearly established. (Emphasis supplied). … The preference clearly influences the measurement.

Johnson-Howard v. AECOM Special Missions Services, Inc.

District Court, D. Maryland · Sep 25, 2023

Defendants argue they are entitled to summary judgment because: (1) they are entitled to derivative government immunity; (2) Plaintiff failed to designate a standard of care/liability expert; (3) Plaintiff cannot establish … Supp. 2d at 968 (concluding that Yearsley did not entitle the defendants “to derivative sovereign immunity at this point in time” where “the record does not contain the entire contract, evidence establishing performance

Erie Insurance v. Chops

322 Md. 79 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Feb 11, 1991

Rather clearly, we think, the trial judge’s determination that Erie failed to notify the MVA of the cancellation of Iser’s insurance within the time required by the statute is supported by the evidence. … See, however, Art. 48A, § 243H(a)(3)(v), expressly excluding subrogated insurers as qualified claimants against the Maryland Automobile Insurance Fund.

Michael v. United States

168 F. Supp. 2d 518 · District Court, D. Maryland · Apr 4, 2001

Incompetent and Unprepared Cross-Examination Petitioner also claims that counsel’s incompetent and unprepared cross-examination qualified as ineffective assistance of counsel. … Yet, in his affidavit, counsel clearly states that he “had numerous meetings with [Petitioner] regarding the evidence against him, potential defenses and potential witnesses.” Aff. ¶ 2a.

Cromwell v. Royal Canadian Insurance

49 Md. 366 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jun 28, 1878

This is all the testimony the record contains, but it shows very clearly that when this paper left the City of Balti *376 more it was an incomplete., unexecuted instrument, forming and evidencing a'contract with no one ; … Eagle Insurance Company of Cincinnati, 10 Gray, 131 , where the defendant corporation was a company created by the laws of Ohio and established at Cincinnati, but had *377 an agent in Boston, duly authorized to make insurance

Wright v. State

312 Md. 648 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jun 7, 1988

“That was clearly a misstatement. Everybody understands that as far as the parties to the case are concerned, but that is what you heard. “Because that is what you heard, ... … It is firmly established that an accused has a constitutional right to a fair trial. State v. Babb, 258 Md. 547, 552 , 267 A.2d 190 (1970).

Wedderburn v. Board of Education of Baltimore County

District Court, D. Maryland · Apr 3, 2025

To establish constructive discharge under the ADA, a plaintiff must show that (1) “[s]he was a qualified individual with a disability; (2) [s]he was discharged; (3) [s]he was fulfilling h[er] employer’s legitimate expectations … As explained in Part III.C.5, Plaintiff cannot establish that she was a qualified individual with a disability under the ADA.

Orfanos v. Athenian, Inc.

66 Md. App. 507 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Mar 5, 1986

There was no evidence establishing precisely where, or how, the fire started. … It also provides a basis for not applying the privilege, or immunity, that attends in defamation cases.

Veney v. Warden

259 Md. 437 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Nov 9, 1970

Mitchell’s testimony is clearly insubstantial. … Indeed, the doctrine of immunity rests upon the belief that, the state may use the promise of withholding criminal prosecution as an inducement to testify against another.

Bradley v. Bradley

119 Md. 645 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Feb 13, 1912

She qualified as such executrix and took possession of his real *647 and personal estate, amounting in value to about one hundred thousand dollars, all of which passed to her under the terms of the alleged will. … What is' meant by the term “probate” and the effect to be given to it is clearly defined and stated in 40 Cyc. page 1223, where it says that the term probate “when properly defined and strictly used, relates to proving and

State v. Rogers

240 Md. App. 360 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Mar 28, 2019

Rogers qualified as a tier II sex offender and was required to register upon release from prison because he was convicted of violating CR § 11-303 and his victim was a minor. Mr. … Rogers filed a complaint in the circuit court seeking a declaratory judgment that he was not required to register as a sex offender because, he argued, the State had failed to establish that his victim was, in fact, a minor

Montgomery County v. Lindsay

50 Md. App. 675 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Feb 5, 1982

Lindsay, by a document entitled "Authorization to establish or change deductions,” dated January 25,1978, was designated by Angerman as the primary beneficiary of his retirement contributions. … It seems apparent to us that the qualifying word "unless”, which means "[e]xcept on condition that” (See American Heritage Dictionary), modifies the word preceding it, "member”.

Fultz v. Shaffer

111 Md. App. 278 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Aug 29, 1996

QUALIFIED DOMESTIC RELATIONS ORDER The husband specifically agrees to cooperate with the wife, to perform any acts, and to execute any documents, necessary to enable the wife to prepare obtain [sic] a Qualified Domestic Relations … He stated that the intent of the parties “clearly excluded the possibility that [Ms.

Lehman, Exec. v. Kairys, Exec.

217 Md. 359 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jun 18, 1958

Edelen, 11 Md. 415, 424 , the Court approved payment to the administratrix for her services “in nursing servants while sick, and furnishing them with necessaries * * * ”, saying that this item was “clearly within the-principles … If the executor had thought that the best interests of the estate required a qualified executive to direct the affairs of the corporation and had utilized the ownership of the stock of the corporation to make that person

Wholey v. Roebuck

370 Md. 38 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jun 19, 2002

That the petitioner was discharged and that the basis for the petitioner’s discharge was his investigation of the store manager and subsequent reporting to his supervisors have been clearly established. … The Arkansas Supreme Court similarly established public policy favoring employee informants in Sterling Drug, Inc. v.

Attorney Grievance v. Merkle

Court of Appeals of Maryland · Nov 24, 2014

“The rationale behind the clearly erroneous standard is settled. … In the present case, Bar Counsel did not establish that Mr. Merkle and Ms. Coates had a sexual relationship or that Mr. Merkle attempted to establish one.