Case law

El-Bey v. Phiuu

District Court, D. Maryland · Jan 19, 2024

of complaints filed by prisoners and to dismiss any complaint that (i) is frivolous or malicious; (ii) fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; or (iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune … incarcerated or detained in any facility, brought an action or appeal in a court of the United States that was dismissed on the grounds that it . . . fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, unless” he can establish

Hechinger Co. v. State's Attorney

272 Md. 706 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Oct 25, 1974

In that case, we found that the three defendants did not qualify for the statutory exemption accorded to “[d]rugstores whose basic business is the sale of drugs and related items” because their basic business was not the … to conduct business for labor or profit in the usual manner and location or to operate its establishment in any manner for the general public.

State of Maryland v. Brown

295 F. Supp. 63 · District Court, D. Maryland · Jan 23, 1969

Second, no federal law confers immunity from state prosecution on such charges. … Judge Mace’s Memorandum and Order set out the reasons for the change of venue clearly and specifically.

Maryland Green Party v. State Board of Elections

165 Md. App. 113 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Oct 7, 2005

FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS The Green Party became qualified as a statutorily recognized political party in Maryland on August 16, 2000. … Section 1343(3) provides: *136 To redress the deprivation, under color of any State law, statute, ordinance, regulation, custom or usage, of any right, privilege or immunity secured by the Constitution of the United States

Crown Oil and Wax Co. of Delaware, Inc. v. Glen Construction Co. of Virginia, Inc.

320 Md. 546 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Sep 11, 1990

First, where the language of the *560 arbitration clause is clear, and the dispute in question falls clearly within the provision. … rested on analogy to immunity of President of the United States); Bachmann v.

Ory v. Libersky

40 Md. App. 151 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jul 17, 1978

In addition to the agreement, other evidence of record in this case clearly establishes a jury question on the issue of loss of educational benefits. … Maryland law clearly permits lump sum verdicts in *167 wrongful death actions. Sun Cab Co. v. Walston, supra, 15 Md. App. at 154, 289 A. 2d at 826 (1972).

Swatek v. Board of Elections

203 Md. App. 272 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Feb 9, 2012

In Gaetano, 310 Md. at 121 , 527 A.2d 46 , the Court of Appeals established a standard for determining whether an administrative appeal should be dismissed when a memorandum was untimely. … Clearly, the appel-lees were given adequate time to become informed of the issues and the appellants’ arguments as well as to prepare a response to the memorandum. See [Md.]

Truant v. Persuhn

District Court, D. Maryland · Dec 12, 2023

In Maryland, “law enforcement officers are public officials and, thus, fall within the scope of qualified immunity as to their discretionary acts.” Williams v. … As the Maryland Supreme Court has recognized, “[a] state public official alleged to have violated Article 24, or any article of the Maryland Declaration of Rights, is not entitled to qualified immunity.” Okwa v.

Meadowlark Insurance v. Insurance Commissioner

101 Md. App. 379 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Sep 1, 1994

The subtitle establishes a method of alternative service upon *382 unauthorized insurers, defines those acts which are to be construed as the “business of insurance” in Maryland and requires that reports be filed with the … Those acts done after *388 a contract has been negotiated and agreed upon (e.g., delivery of the contract, the filing and handling of claims, payment of premium) are clearly not “negotiations.”

Cooper v. Berkshire Life Insurance

148 Md. App. 41 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Nov 14, 2002

Fish And Steinhardt With respect to Fish and Steinhardt, we easily can answer this argument because insurance agents and brokers clearly owe a professional’s duty to the insured. … This general rule is qualified by the “discovery rule,” providing that the cause of action accrues when the claimant knew or reasonably should have known of the wrong. See Poffenberger v.

Maryland Transportation Authority v. King

369 Md. 274 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jun 10, 2002

Comm'n, 40 Md.App. 329, 335 , 391 A.2d 1213 (1978): `It is well established that rules and regulations promulgated by an administrative agency cannot be waived, suspended or disregarded in a particular case as long as such … Eli Lilly and Co., 998 F.2d 931, 936 (Fed.Cir.1993) (abuse of discretion occurs when decision is clearly unreasonable or arbitrary); Haworth, Inc. v.

U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission v. Calvary Currencies LLC

437 F. Supp. 2d 453 · District Court, D. Maryland · Jun 7, 2006

The cold callers’ role was to solicit potential investment customers to pre-qualify them and to generate leads for Keeffe. … The following facts have been established as a matter of law: a. Calvary Currency, LLC, does not qualify as a regulated entity as defined under 7 U.S.C. § 2 (c)2(B)(ii); b.

Litchfield v. Rinehart

District Court, D. Maryland · Aug 29, 2022

Courts in Maryland apply a two- part test to determine whether sovereign immunity applies in a specific case: “(1) whether the entity asserting immunity qualifies for its protection; and, if so, (2) whether the legislature … has waived immunity, either directly or by necessary implication, in a manner that would render the defense of immunity unavailable.”

Leupolu v. Dr. Okoluku

District Court, D. Maryland · Sep 1, 2022

Warden Weber also argues that he is entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity and qualified immunity. Id. at 8, 11-12. In support, Warden Weber provides the declaration of Sgt. … However, the complaint must allege sufficient facts to establish those elements.” Walters v. McMahen, 684 F.3d 435, 439 (4th Cir. 2012) (citation omitted).

Hays v. Philadelphia, Wilmington & Baltimore Railroad

99 Md. 413 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jun 8, 1904

Can these special sittings be parts of the “sittings of the term” as contemplated by the Court which prepared and established the rule? … Engle, 53 Md. 179 , in speaking of the power of the Court to correct on error of the clerk in making entries affecting the execution of a judgment, it was said, “It is clearly one of those common law powers incident to all

Permanent Financial Corp. v. Montgomery County

308 Md. 239 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Dec 5, 1986

The Height Limitation The height limitation for a building erected in the CBD-1 zone under the method of development utilized here is established by § 59-C-6.235. … The penthouse fails to qualify for an exemption in at least two respects. First, the plans show an office in the penthouse for janitorial or security personnel, and an office is not an exempt roof structure.

Coleman v. Kehoe

District Court, D. Maryland · Apr 6, 2023

Exceptional circumstances also include litigants who “is barely able to read or write,” Whisenant at 162, or clearly “has a colorable claim but lacks the capacity to present it,” Berry v. Gutierrez, 587 F. … When a complaint filed by a prisoner is dismissed in its entirety for failure to state a claim it qualifies as a “strike” under the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). See Blakely v.

Cabin John Ltd. Partnership v. Montgomery County Council

259 Md. 661 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Nov 18, 1970

The-first two deal with whether Cabin John established an error in the original zoning or a change of conditions. … We conclude that the Council was not arbitrary and capricious in its decision that change in the character of the neighborhood was not clearly established.

Lodowski v. State

302 Md. 691 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Mar 24, 1986

This has long been established. … The cases, however, which establish that the sentencing judge may consider information, even though it was obtained outside the courtroom without regard to the strict rules of evidence, indicate clearly that there was no

Farmer v. Marshall

District Court, D. Maryland · Jan 25, 2022

“It is well established that before a federal court can decide the merits of a claim, the claim must invoke the jurisdiction of the court.” Miller v. Brown, 462 F.3d 312, 316 (4th Cir. 2006) (citation omitted). … When an entity of the federal government is sued, “the doctrine of sovereign immunity protects the United States from liability, except where it has expressly waived its immunity to suit.” Blake v.