Case law

Powell

District Court, D. Maryland · Feb 25, 2026

immunity. … Taylor, 451 U.S. 527, 543 (1981) (holding that a deprivation of property that “occurred as a result of the unauthorized failure of agents of the State to follow established state procedure” does not violate the

Slagle v. Russell

114 Md. 418 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jan 11, 1911

Baukhages of Baltimore, should they be the purchasers to whom you refer, I would expect a commission from the sale, and I write to this effect so that you may not enter into a contract until we clearly understand just what … It is also the established law that, after negotiations, begun through a broker’s intervention, have virtually culminated in a sale, the agent cannot be discharged, so as to deprive him of his commissions.

Sutton v. State

128 Md. App. 308 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Sep 29, 1999

We will defer to the court’s findings of fact unless clearly erroneous. … Clearly, without the ability to review the warrant or even testimony as to its language, such a review is simply impossible.

McPeek v. Henry

17 F. Supp. 2d 443 · District Court, D. Maryland · Aug 12, 1998

However, that discretion does not immunize the BOP decision from judicial review. Davis v. Crabtree, 109 F.3d 566, 568 (9th Cir.1997), citing Downey v. Crabtree, 100 F.3d 662, 666 (9th Cir.1996). … The court reasoned that “[t]he danger inherent in the mere possession of a firearm is, in many cases, too highly attenuated to qualify the offense as a per se ‘crime of violence.’ ” Id.

Cull v. Wheltle

114 Md. 58 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Nov 30, 1910

Act of 1900, Chapter 15, the Governor was .authorized to appoint, by and Avith the advice and consent of the Senate, three Commissioners for the term of two years and until their respective successors were appointed and qualified … Carter and similar cases are simply to the effect that, in the absence of some limitation, officers in this State hold over until their successors are appointed and qualify, in order to prevent an interregnum.

Thomas

District Court, D. Maryland · Aug 27, 2026

failed to state an Eighth Amendment excessive force claim against Savilisky; (4) ‘Thomas has failed to state a claim based on the allegedly false report leading to disciplinary chiarges; and (5) Savilisky is entitled to qualified … immunity.

Cannon v. Southland Life Insurance

263 Md. 463 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Nov 15, 1971

The absence of such power was clearly set forth not only in the application, but in the receipt itself, upon which the plaintiff’s claim must stand or fall.” … The applicants were all younger than twenty and would not have qualified even if Southland had lowered the general minimum of twenty-five to twenty before they made application.

Spriggs v. Public Service Com'n of Maryland

197 F. Supp. 2d 388 · District Court, D. Maryland · Apr 17, 2002

Further, defendant has not challenged the fact that plaintiff was qualified for her job. 2 However, plaintiff has failed to establish a prima facie case of disparate treatment as to either working conditions or disciplinary … However, plaintiff clearly saw the documents, since she wrote comments on them indicating she did not believe they accurately reflected her contributions and work product. (See Pl.’s Resp. Exs. 4, 5.)

Mahoney v. Devonshire, Inc.

86 Md. App. 624 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Apr 2, 1991

Agreeing with the Kopes that the trial court erred in restricting the scope of the easement, the Supreme Court observed: Even though the common and ordinary use which establishes the prescriptive right also limits and qualifies … Clearly, the disputed questions of fact did not involve matters regarding the scope of the right to exercise an established property right.

Hutton v. State

339 Md. 480 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Aug 28, 1995

Nor does it exist when the occurrence of the precipitating traumatic event has been conceded, has not been challenged, or has been established. … Davis’s testimony was to like effect, except that its focus was more clearly related to PTSD.

Kaylor v. State

285 Md. 66 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Apr 26, 1979

State, 198 Md. 602 , 84 A. 2d 899 (1951) is clearly distinguishable from the present case on its facts. … Probation should not be allowed to develop into a grant of immunity from punishment.

Fitriya'ohniya v. Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services

District Court, D. Maryland · Nov 24, 2021

Fitriyaohniya-Jackson does not have a constitutional right to have a job in prison; (8) there is no respondeat superior liability in this case; and (9) qualified immunity precludes Defendants’ liability. … The State of Maryland has not waived such immunity for claims brought pursuant to § 1983. Accordingly, Defendants are immune from suit for actions taken in their official capacities.

PEOPLE'S COUNSEL FOR BALTIMORE CTY. v. Beachwood I Ltd. Partnership

107 Md. App. 627 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Dec 1, 1995

Inadequate Expert Testimony: Predicated on Economic Disadvantage Sometimes, by contrast, the expert opinion that a “mistake” had been made in the comprehensive zoning was based on a clearly identified and extensively developed … Crozier testified would not establish mistake or error for the reason noted by Howard County v.

Della Ratta, Inc. v. American Better Community Developers, Inc.

38 Md. App. 119 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Dec 7, 1977

To recover damages for lost profits, a plaintiff must establish three elements: “... … To establish damages for lost profits with “reasonable certainty” does not mean that they must be established in an exact pecuniary amount.

Perry v. State

229 Md. App. 687 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Sep 28, 2016

Clearly, the highly nuanced “arc of danger” analysis that was applied in Albrecht is inapplicable to the facts presented in this case. … Therefore, Perry argues that because Corporal Resh was not qualified as an expert, his testimony was improperly admitted.

Nelson v. Diversified Collection Services, Inc.

961 F. Supp. 863 · District Court, D. Maryland · Apr 15, 1997

The statute clearly states that “[notwithstanding any provision of State law, a guaranty agency ... may garnish the disposable pay of an individual to collect the amount owed by the individual ... ”, 20 U.S.C. § 1095a(a). … Given the court’s rulings it is not necessary to consider whether defendants enjoyed qualified immunity in this case.

Evans v. McCoy

291 Md. 562 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Oct 23, 1981

It clearly satisfies the test laid down in Mobile, J. & K.C.R.R. v. Turnipseed, 219 U.S. 35, 43 , 31 S. Ct. 136, 138 , 55 L. … The trial court dismissed SHA on grounds of sovereign immunity but overruled motions of the state officials asserting that defense. None of these rulings is challenged on this appeal.

Merryman v. Bremmer

250 Md. 1 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · May 10, 1968

The Chancellor resolved the conflicts in the testimony in favor of Bremmer and it is apparent that we should not hold that his findings were clearly erroneous. Maryland Rule 885 a. … The procedure was well established and effective.

Hearing v. Citizens Band & Trust Co.

21 Md. App. 517 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jun 13, 1974

Institution of Civil Proceedings: The establishment of this element is conceded by the Bank. … The Court of Appeals stated the proposition clearly in Siegman v.

Decker v. Fahrenholtz

107 Md. 515 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Mar 5, 1908

The appellant in his brief and in his argument does’not áttempt to dispute the numerous cases in which the rule has been established that where a caveat to a will is filed before probate of the will, the Orphans’ Court has … The person named as executor cannot be disregarded by the Court unless he is for some reason disqualified to act, and *521 the authority of the Court is limited to qualifying the executor and issuing letters testamentary.