Case law

State v. Cumberland & Pennsylvania Railroad

40 Md. 22 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Mar 5, 1874

It was clearly stated, and which accords with the tenor of the second, third, and fourth Articles of our Bill of Rights, “that it is established that the States hold all the powers which they originally possessed, except … This is clearly manifest from the decision in the case of Egan vs.

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.

Sodergren v. Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory

138 Md. App. 686 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jun 1, 2001

Schneider, 322 Md. 520 , 588 A.2d 786 (1991), the Court of Appeals concluded that previous cases, including Gersh , stand for the proposition that absolute witness immunity will not apply in a nonjudicial proceeding unless … We are not persuaded that the circumstances and facts of this case require a departure from established precedent. Faith v.

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.

Ruiz v. Kinoshita

239 Md. App. 395 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Nov 2, 2018

This consent order cannot qualify as an appealable interlocutory order. Cf. Globe Am. Cas. Co. v. … s therapy qualifies as an extraordinary medical expense.

John A. Ex Rel. A.A. v. Board of Education

400 Md. 363 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jul 30, 2007

Clearly, the IDEA was not meant to provide a forum for the advancement of such claims. See, e.g., Hunter v. … of procedures. (1) Any state educational agency, State agency, or local educational agency that receives assistance under this subchapter shall establish and maintain procedures in accordance with this section to ensure

Carey v. Wolford

District Court, D. Maryland · Jul 29, 2024

immunity.'' … ‘no constitutional injury, it need not address the issue of qualified immunity.” (citation omitted)). A.

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.

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.

Randolph v. ADT SECURITY SERVICES, INC.

701 F. Supp. 2d 740 · District Court, D. Maryland · Mar 24, 2010

Hager, 188 *746 F.3d 852 (7th Cir.1999), the court ruled that the plaintiffs complaint to the Illinois Department of Labor qualified as protected activity under § 215(a)(3). … Maryland has clearly recognized as a matter of public policy that workers are entitled to overtime wages in certain circumstances. Md.Code Ann., Lab. & Empl. § 3-415.

Harleysville Preferred Ins. Co. v. Rams Head Savage Mill, LLC

237 Md. App. 705 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jun 28, 2018

Insurers thus must draft exclusionary provisions “conspicuously, plainly and clearly.” Id. I. … That is, again, conclusively established by the criminal penalties and private right of action created by § 3-902 itself.

Yivo Institute for Jewish Research v. Zaleski

156 Md. App. 527 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Apr 19, 2004

Karski died on July 12, 2000, and appellee Paul Zaleski qualified as the personal representative. 7 Because of his earlier gift, the personal representative denied YIVO’s request for payment of the bequest on the basis that … Ploss’ testimony established that Dr. Karski intended the bequest in his will to act only as security for his obligation to YIVO, which was satisfied when he made the inter vivos gift.

Harris v. Board of Education

375 Md. 21 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jun 6, 2003

The appellate court stated: “Clearly, there was sufficient evidence to allow appellee’s case to proceed to the jury. … Applying this principle to the present case clearly mandates coverage.

Murphy v. Board of County Commissioners

13 Md. App. 497 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Dec 2, 1971

We cannot say that the judge was in error, on the evidence before him, in ruling that Pauley was not qualified to express an expert opinion. D. … It is well established that the action of a trial court on a motion for a new trial is not reviewable on appeal, at least when the trial court fairly exercised its discretion. Leitch v.

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.

Levitas v. Christian

454 Md. 233 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jul 11, 2017

This Court later clarified that in order to establish the first “source” link in the chain, “the plaintiff must tender facts admissible in evidence that, if believed, establish two separate inferences: (1) that the property … Furthermore, the Majority’s holding will encourage trial courts to place the “imprimatur of court-endorsed expert status” on expert opinions that do not clearly establish that the defendant’s property was, more likely than

State v. Lassotovitch

162 Md. 147 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Mar 4, 1932

But this dotes not mean that it is unnecessary to allege such facts in connection with the commission of the offense as will certainly put the accused on full notice of what he is called upon to defend, and establish such … The distinction between the description of the particular act and its characterization as a crime is clearly stated in Armacost v. State, supra."

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.

Kluckhuhn v. Ivy Hill Ass'n, Inc.

55 Md. App. 41 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jun 8, 1983

Cole qualified as receiver by posting the required bond. 1 When the first receiver was appointed, the Kluckhuhns (the present appellants) owned a lot adjacent to the cemetery property. … The record contains indications that the boundary between Ivy Hill and the Kluckhuhns was less than perfectly established.

Car-Freshner Corporation v. Marlenn Products Company

183 F. Supp. 20 · District Court, D. Maryland · Mar 30, 1960

Such matter, while it identifies applicant’s goods, is only, qualified for registry on the Supplemental Register in accordance with the provisions of Section 23 of the Act of July 5, 1946. … Testimony established that the letter was written, sealed in an air mail envelope, addressed and mailed by Mr. Samann from Switzerland.