Case law

Albert v. Franchot

District Court, D. Maryland · Jun 16, 2023

Under the Eleventh Amendment, states generally enjoy immunity from suit unless a state waives its immunity, or the immunity is abrogated by Congress. Bd. of Tres. v. Garrett, 531 U.S. 356, 363-64 (2001). … It is the State’s custody of unclaimed property, and use of it for public benefit without compensating the owner, that qualifies as a taking.

Johansson Corp. v. Bowness Construction Co.

304 F. Supp. 2d 701 · District Court, D. Maryland · Jan 22, 2004

Bowness never has been qualified to do business in Maryland, employed any individuals or otherwise established a physical presence in Maryland, performed any services or work in Maryland, or owned any real or personal property … Mortgage Equity, 93 F.Supp.2d at 629 ("[T]he selection by the parties, and [the defendant] in particular, of Minnesota law over Maryland law, when the choice of Maryland law was clearly an available option, weighs heavily

Dart Drug Corp. v. Hechinger Co.

272 Md. 15 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jun 3, 1974

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. … This was clearly consonant with the Maryland Rules. Rule 320 a 4 provides: “4. Defects Disregarded.

Brittingham v. State

63 Md. App. 164 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · May 14, 1985

That the doctor never filed such a report is clearly not the same as never having seen the subject report. … This evidence was clearly discovered during the trial, as opposed to “since the trial”. Id.

Cottrell

District Court, D. Maryland · Mar 9, 2026

immunity. … Further, Cottrell does not allege any pattern of widespread abuse necessary to establish supervisory action or inaction giving rise to § 1983 liability. See Wellington v.

Columbia Town Center Title Co. v. 100 Investment Ltd. Partnership

203 Md. App. 61 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Feb 2, 2012

The bank first informed the Jacqueses that they qualified for a $74,000 loan, but later informed them that a mistake had been made and that, under the bank’s guidelines, they only qualified for a $41,400 loan. … It is obvious, however, that a title insurer would want to exclude a defect clearly shown on the public record from coverage.

Riffey v. Tonder

36 Md. App. 633 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jul 7, 1977

I’m not just using him, Your Honor, — I am not attempting to use him to establish anything with respect to the use of Heparin. (The Court) I understand. (Mr. … raised by the plaintiff, was clearly a part of the plaintiffs’ expert witness, Dr.

Koren v. Capital-Gazette Newspapers, Inc.

22 Md. App. 576 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Sep 17, 1974

SET TODAY” clearly implies official belief in Koren’s criminal involvement. In short, no perplexed reader was still seeking subtle clues in *585 the tenth paragraph as to the position of the FBI in the case. … Welch, supra, also definitely established that there may never be punitive damages, absent the establishment of “constitutional malice.” 5 . Time, Inc. o.

Daniels v. Daniels

217 Md. App. 406 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jun 24, 2014

Appellee, Brenda Daniels, his daughter from a former marriage, qualified as personal representative of his estate. … He clearly had access to them throughout his lifetime, which means that he ... clearly could have revoked it at any point.

Dierker v. Eagle National Bank

888 F. Supp. 2d 645 · District Court, D. Maryland · Aug 16, 2012

CSM produced a spreadsheet of loans in its “pipeline”; the spreadsheet did not show whether the loan applicants would qualify for a loan. … Compl. 11, which "more clearly expresses the concept intended.” See Pavel Enters. v. A.S. Johnson Co., 342 Md. 143 , 674 A.2d 521 , 523 n. 1 (1996). .

Attorney General v. Johnson

282 Md. 274 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Oct 2, 1978

Such a statute is presumed to be valid and one attacking its validity has the burden of affirmatively and clearly establishing its invalidity; every intendment is in favor of the validity of the statute where there is a substantial … The law is clearly contrary to the appellees’ contention.

Sweet v. State

371 Md. 1 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Aug 30, 2002

Sweet, would qualify as one who has to comply with the violence [sic] sex offender registration." … That is not surprising since conditions of probation are clearly punishment. See Spielman v.

Brooks v. State

439 Md. 698 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Aug 27, 2014

The State called a social worker, who was qualified as an “expert in the field of child sexual abuse.” 312 Md. at 271 , 539 A.2d 657 . … In Nurse Harden’s testimony, the use of the word “would” qualifies the verb "verify” with an unstated condition.

United States v. Certain Parcels of Land in City of Baltimore

61 F. Supp. 164 · District Court, D. Maryland · Jun 16, 1945

If the taxes were then a lien they clearly so continued until the fund was paid into court thereafter. … It appeared further that this qualified or tentative protest had not been acted on by the Appeal Tax Court.

Patel v. Board of License Commissioners

230 Md. App. 195 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Sep 29, 2016

And clearly I think that issue has been settled.” Counsel for Mr. … Patel qualifies under the first category; he is a person who holds an alcoholic beverages license issued by the Board.

State v. Young

462 Md. 159 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Dec 18, 2018

Rather, the prosecutor clearly spelled out her reasons for excluding the prescription evidence, and they all clearly focused on challenging the prescriptions as inadmissible hearsay. … A letter stating as much would clearly be hearsay.

Secretary, Maryland Department of Personnel v. Bender

44 Md. App. 714 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Feb 11, 1980

Ill, § 29 requires) so clearly addresses this problem then pending in this case, that it all but names the parties and the employees it intended to affect. … Another bill was enacted in the same 1978 Session proposing to add a new "Section 56” dealing with an entirely different subject matter, i.e., the "Defense of Sovereign Immunity”. Chapter 523, Laws of Md. 1978.

Duran v. State

180 Md. App. 65 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · May 9, 2008

The State conceded that second degree assault was not an enumerated crime, but maintained that Cain should be required to register as an offender “because the underlying facts establishing the assault were sexual in nature … On appeal, however, the State, impliedly conceding that indecent exposure is not a “qualifying offense” requiring registration, argues that, nevertheless, the plea agreement “clearly contemplated” that appellant be “evaluated

Motor Vehicle Administration v. Sanner

434 Md. 20 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Aug 22, 2013

That specimen was tested at the MSP Forensics Science Division by a qualified analyst, with the result that Mr. Sanner’s blood alcohol content was found to be 0.22 — more than two-and-a-half times the legal limit. … What I’ve written here is you’ve made the reasonable grounds argument that there was no reasonable grounds to establish that Mr.

C B Structures, Inc. v. Potomac Electric Power Co.

122 F. Supp. 3d 247 · District Court, D. Maryland · Aug 13, 2015

Clearly, the word “premium” was qualified by the word “expenses” and explained, why C B Structures would have to increase the total cost,to achieve early completion:, because, doing so would, cause it to incur additional … And, it establishes that, when Pepeo failed to include language in the Contract clearly stating its requirement that the Premium be an incentive, it “‘had the better opportunity to understand and explain [its] meaning1 ”