Case law

Long v. Robinson

316 F. Supp. 22 · District Court, D. Maryland · Aug 6, 1970

The situation would seem clearly to fall within the reason and language of Moody v. Flowers, 1967, 387 U.S. 97, 101-103 , 87 S.Ct. 1544 , 18 L.Ed.2d 643 . … In Baltimore City, a child of sixteen or seventeen who may come within one of the last five categories is immune from the power of any court, for the Juvenile Court has no jurisdiction over that age group and the criminal

Pace Ex Rel. Pace v. State

425 Md. 145 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Feb 22, 2012

They also moved to dismiss on the ground of governmental immunity. On March 15, 2007, Ms. … Kight, 406 Md. 167 , 957 A.2d 984 (2008): The rules governing the construction of Federal statutes are well-established.

Green v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.

927 F. Supp. 2d 244 · District Court, D. Maryland · Feb 27, 2013

They found a bank that agreed to process their loan application, but the bank ultimately determined that they qualified for an amount considerably less than needed to complete the sale. … So, too, is reasonable reliance necessary to establish liability for fraud and promissory estoppel.

Toms v. Calvary Assembly of God, Inc.

446 Md. 543 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Feb 29, 2016

For questions of fact for an action tried without a jury, we apply a clearly erroneous standard. Md. … Only qualified professional fireworks companies and their agents—authorized shooters—may apply for a permit.

In Re Adoption No. 95195062

116 Md. App. 443 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jul 18, 1997

Undoubtedly, the Department introduced it to establish the truth of its contents. … The Court concluded: Covington clearly lights the path which may be followed by the defendant in such circumstances.

Bethesda Armature Co. v. Sullivan

47 Md. App. 498 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jan 8, 1981

built for the special use of the establishment, its customers, or its suppliers; and the question has arisen as to whether such a driveway or ramp qualifies as a "special use” sufficient to charge the abutting owner with … Unfortunately, this issue was not so clearly presented to the jury.

Ferdinand-Davenport v. Children's Guild

742 F. Supp. 2d 772 · District Court, D. Maryland · Oct 6, 2010

The pleadings do not establish clearly the time at which she left these messages in relation to the time at which TCG hired others to fill the positions. … Davenport has alleged sufficient facts to establish the second element. TCG also contends Davenport failed to establish the fourth element, an inference of pregnancy discrimination.

Daniels v. State

213 Md. 90 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Apr 12, 1957

The objection was based on relevancy and that the witness (Sergeant Treadwell) was not qualified to express an opinion *105 that the substance on the money was blood. … This clearly was prejudicial error because the court invaded the right of the jury to determine the weight or the probative force of the evidence, *106 and the appellate court so held.

Tubize Chattilon Corp. v. White Transp. Co.

6 F. Supp. 15 · District Court, D. Maryland · Feb 14, 1934

. * * * The English cases * * * have consistently held that the mere receipt of property for transportation to a point beyond the line of the receiving carrier, without any qualifying agreement, justified an inference of … question of evidence thus presented. * * * Upon the other hand, many .American courts have repudiated the English rule which holds the carrier to a contract for transportation over the whole route, in the absence of a contract clearly

Dejarnette v. State

Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jul 6, 2021

Dejarnette maintains that “where the State seeks to admit the results of a breath test but fails to establish compliance with the observation period, the test results are inadmissible.” … The record clearly supports a factual finding that the officers complied with the COMAR regulation requiring a twenty-minute observation period prior to the administration of the breath test. III.

Dunbar v. Biedlingmaier

District Court, D. Maryland · Mar 17, 2022

Dismissal, however, is proper “when the face of the complaint clearly reveals the existence of a meritorious affirmative defense.” Brooks v. … Sovereign immunity immunizes counties for both negligence and intentional torts committed by their employees. See, e.g., Niese v.

Meade v. Shangri-La Partnership

424 Md. 476 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jan 26, 2012

issued a writ of certiorari in the case to consider whether discrimination because of a “handicap,” within the meaning of the Maryland statutory provisions, should be construed “strictly to create a demanding standard for qualifying … Nonetheless, the evidence in this case clearly supports the jury’s conclusion that Meade’s latex allergy was a handicap which damaged, weakened, or diminished her ability to interact with her son at school, as well as her

Ragan v. Federal Bureau of Investigation National Instant Criminal Background Check System Section

District Court, D. Maryland · May 5, 2025

‘expunged’ for certain purposes still qualify as 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) prohibitors.” Id. Mr. … “Under settled principles of sovereign immunity, the United States, as sovereign, is immune from suit, save as it consents to be sued.” United States v.

Montgomery County v. Fraternal Order of Police

222 Md. App. 278 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Apr 3, 2015

In the court’s view, they are entitled to at least “qualified immunity” to the extent the plaintiffs seeks to hold them personally liable. … “If the law at the time was not clearly established, an official could not reasonably be expected to anticipate subsequent legal developments, nor could he fairly be said to ‘know’ that the law forbade

Murrill v. Hough

District Court, D. Maryland · Sep 6, 2022

They do not assert the absence of clearly established law at the time of the alleged violations. … Their qualified immunity arguments therefore cover the same ground as their merits arguments and need not be addressed separately. 15 State Defendants’ arguments

Medsense, LLC v. University System of Maryland

District Court, D. Maryland · Sep 27, 2019

Here, in establishing USM, the Maryland legislature specifically defined it as an “instrumentality of the State,” governing “constituent institutions” of higher education. Md. … Section 13.08 clearly states that it is the Licensee who is the party consenting to this Court’s jurisdiction. See J.R. 027, “2013 Exclusive License Agreement.”

In Re Maurice M.

314 Md. 391 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Dec 19, 1988

in the hands of the client and retained that immunity in the hands of the attorney. … It is difficult to establish and cannot be inferred from a silent record. Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514, 525-26 , 92 S.Ct. 2182, 2189-90 , 33 L.Ed.2d 101 (1972).

Duckworth v. State Board of Elections

213 F. Supp. 2d 543 · District Court, D. Maryland · Aug 5, 2002

Thereafter, the Governor established a five-member Redistricting Advisory Committee to formulate the 2002 redistricting plan. Id. ¶ 13 . … Accordingly, I need not and do not reach defendants’ arguments based on sovereign immunity or laches. I explain. IV. A.

Holmes v. State

119 Md. App. 518 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Feb 2, 1998

Detective Anthony Mammano, who was qualified as an expert in the packaging and identification of drugs, testified that it was his opinion that the substances were packaged for distribution and not for personal use. *523 I … I will establish these are routine booky (sic) questions. *528 THE COURT: That’s not a routine booky (sic) question.

In the Matter of Meddings

244 Md. App. 204 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Dec 23, 2019

After a show cause hearing, Wolfe was granted an order establishing an interlocutory lien against Maryland National Golf. Id. … From this review of case law, we confirm an established principle of appellate review: a trial court’s factual findings will be reviewed for clear error.