Case law

Contract Materials Processing, Inc. v. Kataleuna GmbH Catalysts

222 F. Supp. 2d 733 · District Court, D. Maryland · Sep 19, 2002

However, CMP has failed to generate any evidence demonstrating that the Technology qualifies as a trade secret under the Act. Nor has CMP provided any detail or description of what it claims to be trade secrets. … The subjective misconduct prong of the test for bad faith is established in this *748 record by clear and convincing evidence.

Habron v. Epstein

412 F. Supp. 256 · District Court, D. Maryland · Apr 6, 1976

While the cases cited by plaintiff illustrate situations wherein the Court declared the statute in question unconstitutional, the statutes in those cases were clearly dissimilar to the one at hand— James v. … These results, which are likely to flow from Section 105A, are palpably sufficient to pass McGowan scrutiny by clearly offering a legitimate purpose for the statute.

Harrod v. Baltimore City

District Court, D. Maryland · Oct 10, 2019

In order to establish Monell or supervisory liability, Harrod will have to establish that the Officer Defendants caused him constitutional injury at the time of his arrest on August 20, 2015. … Harrod correctly notes that it is conceivable that he will prove the requisite constitutional injury, but that the Officer Defendants' defense of qualified immunity will exempt them from liability.

Tribue v. State of Maryland

District Court, D. Maryland · Sep 13, 2024

° Defendants also argue that Dunlap’s and Diaz’s § 1983 claims are barred by the statute of limitations and that the individual Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. … In support, ‘Plaintiffs cite to two cases discussing qualified immunity, not whether a plaintiff has stated a plausible claim of supervisory liability. See ECF 32, at 20 (citing to Bennett v. N.

Weems v. Calvert County Government

District Court, D. Maryland · Sep 19, 2025

Plaintiffs are incorrect and section 1331, establishing federal question jurisdiction, does not support their argument. … Here, Plaintiffs’ complaint is expansive and confusing, full of conclusory allegations, and fails to clearly allege which Defendant committed which act and to what end.

O'Hara v. Shepherd

3 Md. Ch. 306 · High Court of Chancery of Maryland · Mar 15, 1851

But the Chancellor does not see very clearly how the question is brought before him, or by what form of order or decree he can settle it. … The deposition of William McNeir, the mortgagor, taken before the Auditor on the 18th of September, 1852, is so full, explicit, and unanswerable, and so completely establishes the knowledge, consent, and co-operation of George

Lady v. Prince George's County

43 Md. App. 99 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jul 11, 1979

.” — the Court nevertheless clearly held fast to the rule that there was no right to a refund of overpaid taxes except as permitted by statute. … This type of reasoning has not found favor in Maryland, however, as witness the continued vitality (except as expressly repealed or diluted by statute) of the general doctrine of sovereign immunity. 3 As did the Illinois

Ledergerber v. Blubaugh

District Court, D. Maryland · Aug 24, 2023

In Rehberg, the Court was asked to determine whether the well-established rule granting trial witnesses absolute immunity from § 1983 claims applied with equal force to testifying grand jury witnesses. 566 U.S. … Defendants contend that plaintiffs have failed to establish gross negligence or actual malice, such that Corporal Blubaugh is entitled to MTCA immunity from plaintiffs’ negligence claim.

Catler v. Arent Fox, LLP

212 Md. App. 685 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · May 30, 2013

The court additionally erred by finding that appellants’ experts failed to state clearly enough the precise scope of the duty owed. … Fine are qualified ... my view is that their opinions are ‘because I said so’ opinions....

McCullough v. State

233 Md. App. 702 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Aug 30, 2017

established federal law.” … The court held that the California court’s failure to apply Graham to the defendant’s sentences was contrary to clearly established federal law.

Grier v. HUD

District Court, D. Maryland · Nov 1, 2022

As to the sovereign immunity issue, Ms. … Grier’s FTCA claims because she has not established that a waiver of sovereign immunity applies.

Moore v. State

390 Md. 343 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Dec 14, 2005

Establishment of the Right to Expert Assistance 1. … Clearly, it does not come close to frustrating the orderly administration of the criminal justice system. *407 D.

Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Ford

204 Md. App. 1 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Feb 9, 2012

It was within the purview of the jury to assess the weight to be given to the plaintiffs’ testimony as to the value of their properties, *252 and the jury clearly found this evidence to be sufficient to determine that the … In Maryland, there is currently no independent tort cause of action for medical monitoring or a test established for recog *257 nizing medical monitoring as an allowable form of relief. Philip Morris, Inc. v.

Ray-Simmons & McGouldrick v. State

Court of Appeals of Maryland · Feb 22, 2016

of establishing purposeful discrimination. … In my view, he was not clearly erroneous when he found that a prima facie case of purposeful discrimination was not established.

Walker v. Heavener

District Court, D. Maryland · Jul 10, 2019

However, Heavener argues that Plaintiffs’ § 1983 claim fails because the record demonstrates that he did not deprive Wallace of any rights and because he is entitled to qualified immunity. (M.S.J. … The Court concludes that no reasonable jury could find that Heavener violated Wallace’s constitutional rights and, thus, does not address qualified immunity.

Schmeizl v. Schmeizl

186 Md. 371 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Apr 16, 1946

Joseph Schmeizl, a brother, qualified as administrator of the estate in the Orphans’ Court of Baltimore City. Mrs. … The present appeal is from that order. *374 It has long been established at common law that, in the absence of statutory provision to the contrary, a widow will not be barred from her right of inheritance in her husband’s

Alexis v. State

437 Md. 457 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Mar 24, 2014

Additionally, included as part of the right to assistance of counsel, is the qualified right of a defendant to select and be represented by one’s preferred attorney. … See also Goldsberry, 419 Md. at 118, 18 A.3d at 847 (“The right to counsel of choice . . . is qualified.”).

Gill v. McAttee

2 Md. Ch. 255 · High Court of Chancery of Maryland · Jul 15, 1851

Ghiselin et al., 5 Gill, at page 182 , the Court of Appeals repeat what had been repeatedly said before, “that courts of equity have properly required that every agreement shall be clearly and explicitly established before … to be unsettled by the courts, it has been so qualified, as only to apply to cases where the notice is so clearly proved as to make it fraudulent in the purchaser to take and register a conveyance in prejudice to the known

Stansbury v. MDR Development, L.L.C.

161 Md. App. 594 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Apr 4, 2005

Kennedy, 5 Har. and J. 195 (1821)): Whatever the law was elsewhere, that case settled it for this state, and has never been overruled or qualified. … MDR has not insisted that the easement be established over the old footbridge.

Hogge v. SS YORKMAR

434 F. Supp. 715 · District Court, D. Maryland · Mar 11, 1977

Radio communication shall be established on 156.65 mc/s [channel 13]. This regulation is clearly insufficient to clarify the concept of “clearance.” … The Corps of Engineers is an instrumentality of the United States Government, raising the question of sovereign immunity to Penn Central’s claim.