Case law

Simon v. Gladstone

District Court, D. Maryland · Mar 18, 2023

The actions of the Defendants violated the clearly established and well-settled federal constitutional rights of Plaintiff Demetric Simon, including as follows. a. … By deliberately failing to disclose the foregoing misconduct, the Defendant Officers violated their clearly established duty to report all material exculpatory and impeachment information to

Ebb v. Eastern Correctional Institution Health Care Personnel

District Court, D. Maryland · Aug 8, 2024

While the State of Maryland has waived its sovereign immunity for certain types of cases brought in state courts, see Md. … immunity precludes liability.

Benkin v. Benkin

71 Md. App. 191 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · May 6, 1987

Benkin’s qualifying for an indefinite alimony award based solely on “age, illness, infirmity or disability” under subsection (c)(1), we must now address the impact of her age, qualifications and whatever disability she might … wholly or partly self-supporting; (2) the time necessary for the party seeking alimony to gain sufficient education or training to enable that party to find suitable employment; (3) the standard of living that the parties established

Pinheiro v. State

244 Md. App. 703 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Mar 2, 2020

Hence, we hold that the BWC footage qualifies as physical evidence under § 9-307(b). ii. … The plain language of the statute clearly indicates that the fabrication of physical evidence is, in part, a specific intent crime. See Harris v.

COSTAR REALTY INFORMATION, INC. v. Field

737 F. Supp. 2d 496 · District Court, D. Maryland · Aug 23, 2010

In fact, the headings of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15 clearly state that subsection (a) applies to “Amendments Before Trial” and subsection (b) applies to “Amendments During and After Trial.” … Thus, in order for Plaintiffs to bring an action for violation of the CFAA, they must demonstrate that they suffered a qualifying “loss,” as defined by the statute.

Rankin v. Greater Media, Inc.

28 F. Supp. 2d 331 · District Court, D. Maryland · Apr 28, 1997

Wright because he believed him to be qualified and had worked with him before in the past. … It is well-established that a plaintiff must prove the following four elements to maintain a claim of unlawful discharge: (1) plaintiff is a member of a protected class; (2) plaintiff was qualified for the job and performed

Perry v. Maryland

357 Md. 37 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Dec 10, 1999

The only direct testimonial evidence of contact between Horn and Perry came from Thomas Turner, a resident of Detroit, who was Horn’s cousin and Perry’s friend and who testified under a grant of immunity. 2 In the spring … The finding of inadvertence is a finding of fact, which, if before us, we would review under the clearly erroneous standard.

Hylind v. Xerox Corp.

380 F. Supp. 2d 705 · District Court, D. Maryland · Jul 8, 2005

Under McDonnell Douglas, the employee must first establish a prima facie case of retaliation, at which point the burden shifts to the employer to establish a legitimate non-retaliatory reason for its action. … While Xerox appears to dispute that she had done so, record evidence clearly suggests that Hylind had in fact engaged in such activity.

B.N. v. K.K

312 Md. 135 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Mar 29, 1988

These allegations suffice, if established, to support the first element of the tort. Even if Dr. … N. without disclosing his condition would be highly likely to produce severe harm to a readily and clearly identifiable person. Furr v.

Comptroller of the Treasury v. Colonial Farm Credit, ACA

173 Md. App. 173 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Mar 12, 2007

This would clearly include the taxation provisions for FLBAs pursuant to 12 U.S.C. § 2098 . … In this case, the Internal Revenue Code does not clearly establish Colonial’s federal taxable income.

Younger v. Green

District Court, D. Maryland · Nov 19, 2019

As in Brent, the individual Defendants will assert defenses unavailable in the State action, including the defense of qualified immunity. … Aug. 10, 2017), “[i]t is well established that the doctrine of respondeat superior does not apply in § 1983 claims.” (citing Love-Lane v. Martin, 355 F.3d 766, 782 (4th Cir. 2004)).

Gallagher v. Gallagher

118 Md. App. 567 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Dec 1, 1997

Burke did not testify as an expert witness, we believe his testimony was qualified as such. … Carney and the investigator fees, the information gathered from these sources, although much was not used at trial, was necessary to establish appellee’s ground for divorce.

Anchorage SNF, LLC v. Padilla

District Court, D. Maryland · Jan 30, 2023

First, Defendants argue that Plaintiffs’ allegations do not establish standing. See generally (ECF No. 9- 1, Section IV. A.) … In Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 (1908), the Supreme Court established a narrow exception to a state official’s Eleventh Amendment immunity to suit in federal court.

Morgan

District Court, D. Maryland · Mar 3, 2026

The Charles County Sheriff’s Office must be dismissed on Eleventh Amendment immunity grounds. … While the State of Maryland has waived its sovereign immunity for certain types of cases brought in its courts, see Md.

State v. Jones

284 Md. 232 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jan 4, 1979

Judge Digges, writing for the Court, first ruled that the evidence that a blue car was seen in front of two residences where break-ins occurred was “clearly inadequate to show any kind of systematic scheme or plan sufficient … Nor does the fact that the offenses were committed by the same persons qualify them to be admitted under the exception. See Atnip v. State, 564 P. 2d 660 (Okla.

Kres v. Maryland Automobile Insurance Fund

273 Md. 289 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Dec 4, 1974

While not as clearly stated as they might have been, the events, thus described by the two witnesses, demonstrate that Miss Kres has a “cause of action” against the operator of the phantom vehicle. … The Maryland Automobile Insurance Fund is established by and operates under the provisions of Maryland Code (1957,1972 Repl. Vol., 1974 Cum. Supp.)

In re Mann

116 F. Supp. 852 · District Court, D. Maryland · Oct 2, 1953

These words were in the Act when the Supreme Court decided the Hiscock case, supra, and recognized the immunity of the pledgee’s contract giving him the right to sell. … Therefore, should Sherwood establish its solvency, this would merely confirm the Bank’s right to sell without court authority.

Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Jeter

365 Md. 279 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Aug 17, 2001

As such, the hearing judge’s conclusion of law is not entitled to review under the clearly erroneous standard applied by the Majority (Maj. op. at 288-89). … See, e.g., Fezell, 361 Md. at 252-53 , 760 A.2d at 1117-18 (letters from Bar Counsel qualify as lawful demands for purposes of rule 8.1(b)); Hallmon, 343 Md. at 407-08 , 681 A.2d 510, 519-20 (holding that attorney violated

Webb v. State

144 Md. App. 729 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jun 10, 2002

If you want the Public Defender you’ve got to apply to them and if you qualify, they will appoint someone to represent you. … Appellant argues that the court erred in imposing his sentence because the record is devoid of evidence establishing that the State complied with Maryland Rule 4-245(c).

Walston v. Dobbins

10 Md. App. 490 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Dec 7, 1970

Having established his knowledge, through experience, as to the charges of x-ray specialists, *496 Dr. Berman was properly allowed to testify as to the fairness and reasonableness of the bill. … Berman’s testimony, as well as Dobbins’ testimony, clearly indicates the treatment given on January 6, 1967, and in the visits following that date were for the same injuries treated in the initial visit.