Case law

Fleisher v. Ensminger

140 Md. 604 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Mar 5, 1922

The first and second are to rulings of the court on testimony and are clearly unimportant. It is sufficient to say as to them that we find no error in those rulings. … The modification simply qualifies the prayer as to the one proposition contained in it *621 as offered.

Collins v. State

89 Md. App. 273 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Nov 6, 1991

Because it usurps the fact-finding function of the jury, such an instruction is clearly error, United States v. … This is especially true when a court is construing a penal statute, which, according to well established case law, is to be strictly construed.

Singfield v. Carr

District Court, D. Maryland · Mar 25, 2025

from claims against them in their official capacities; and (7) Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. … To establish an Eighth Amendment violation, an inmate must establish both that (1) the injury or deprivation inflicted was objectively serious enough to constitute a violation; and (2) the prison official subjectively

Basciano v. Foster

Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Nov 1, 2022

In so doing, the Court overturned Janice M. as “clearly wrong and contrary to established principles” and as “undermined by subsequent events.” … , per se, to establish exceptional circumstances.”

Sizemore v. Town of Chesapeake Beach

225 Md. App. 631 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Nov 25, 2015

To qualify as a nonconforming use, the use must exist at the time of the enactment of the zoning ordinance, or the date the zoning ordinance became effective. … The logical extension of their position is that a vested zoning right to continue construction exists in perpetuity and is immune from the applicable zoning regulations.

Cason v. Corizon Health Services

District Court, D. Maryland · Jan 25, 2021

To be sure, Cason has established that he has a disability. … Based on the record evidence viewed most favorably to Cason, he clearly was suffering from a serious medical need.

Taylor v. State

175 Md. App. 153 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jun 28, 2007

Md.Code (2002, 2006 Cum.Supp.), section 5-608 of the Criminal Law Article (Crim.) establishes mandatory minimum sentences for second, third, and fourth drug crimes. … The Gargliano Court recognized that the phrase “if the person previously has been convicted” is not clearly defined in the statute or otherwise discussed anywhere in legislative history.

State Center, LLC v. Lexington Charles Ltd. Partnership

438 Md. 451 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Mar 27, 2014

Then, the Circuit Court found “that Plaintiffs’ claims for declaratory and equitable relief are not barred by the doctrine of sovereign immunity” because “[s]overeign immunity is not a bar to Plaintiffs challenging ‘the … The Court explained, With regard to a contract claim, the Board clearly has jurisdiction over disputes arising out of performance, breach, modification or termination of a procurement contract.

State ex rel. Baltimore, Canton & Point Breeze Railway Co. v. Latrobe

81 Md. 222 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Apr 4, 1895

A qualifying proviso then follows. Its terms and provisions, which vitally affect the pending controversy, will be fully stated later on. … having asserted an enforcement of the consequences following from a breach of that condition, the case, as thus presented, materially differs from those cited above, and whilst they announce a perfectly correct and well-established

Iwebo v. Sheppard Pratt Health System, Inc.

District Court, D. Maryland · Aug 14, 2020

“[t]he similarity between comparators . . . must be clearly established in order to be meaningful.”’” Conney v. Ameri-Klean Services, Inc., 2018 WL 1075808, at *3 (D. Md. Feb. 26, 2018) (quoting Lightner v. … Thus, to establish that she is a qualified individual, plaintiff must show that (a) she was disabled and (b) she was qualified to perform the essential functions of her position. 1.

Wiggins v. Baltimore Police Department

District Court, D. Maryland · Sep 29, 2023

When a plaintiff attempts to rely on comparator evidence to establish circumstances giving rise to an inference of unlawful discrimination, “[t]he similarity between comparators . . . must be clearly established in order … The Complaint states in conclusory fashion that “Plaintiff’s allegations clearly show a custom of discrimination as required by Section 1983,” (Compl. ¶ 115), but offers no facts depicting any such custom.

Cook v. Housing Authority of Baltimore City

District Court, D. Maryland · Dec 2, 2020

immunity defense. … Defendants may invoke this defense, which is designed to protect public officials from becoming embroiled in lawsuits, when “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which

Paul Construction Co. v. Powell

200 Md. 168 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · May 9, 1952

Mattax is certainly qualified to point out, for what it may be worth, his opinion as to any lacunae in Dr. Arnold’s reasoning. … Neither could be deduced from mathematical or other general principles or from facts undisputed or established by laboratory tests.

Homes Oil Co. v. Maryland Department of Environment

135 Md. App. 442 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Nov 30, 2000

. § 4-704 provides for the establishment of the fund: (a) Established.—There is an Oil Contaminated Site Environmental Cleanup Fund. (b) Uses. … The Fund was established to provide assistance and adequate financial resources for these clean-up efforts.

Henderson v. United States

63 F. Supp. 906 · District Court, D. Maryland · Dec 17, 1945

“One is the primary jurisdiction doctrine, firmly established in Texas & Pacific R. Co. v. Abilene Cotton Oil Co., 204 U.S. 426 , 27 S.Ct. 350 , 51 L.Ed. 553 , 9 Ann.Cas. 1075. … Section 3, paragraph 1 of the Interstate Commerce Act makes it unlawful to subject any person in interstate commerce to any undue or unreasonable prejudice or disadvantage in any respect whatsoever, and this prohibition clearly

Ingram v. Cantwell-Cleary Co.

Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Dec 22, 2023

It is clearly tied into the employee’s duties. The time period of one year is not unreasonably long. … They contend that Cantwell-Cleary’s customer lists and pricing information do not qualify as trade secrets under MUTSA and they claim that the evidence did not establish that Appellants actually misappropriated any such

Carr v. State

284 Md. 455 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Feb 22, 1979

He denied on cross-examination that he had been promised immunity if he implicated someone else. It was later learned that such a promise had been made. … Such a finding is permissible only if supported by evidence establishing guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Moment v. Enterprise Car Rental Corporation

District Court, D. Maryland · Sep 30, 2024

And so, if there clearly exist factual issues “that properly can be resolved only by a finder of fact because they may reasonably be resolved in favor of either party,” then summary judgment is inappropriate. … sovereign immunity.

Babcock & Wilcox, Inc. v. Steiner

258 Md. 468 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jun 8, 1970

The record further reveals that although the attorneys for the parties qualified the total permanent disability of the claimant to work in his occupation, the medical testimony which we will later recite, and which was uncontroverted … We believe that such a decision comes clearly within the powers of the Board to make that it is an aspect of the Board’s fact-finding power, and that this Court should not say as a matter of law that a man who is actually

Snyder v. Gail Watts Director

District Court, D. Maryland · Jan 19, 2024

Boardman United States District Judge > The Court will not entertain the defendants’ argument that they are entitled to qualified immunity. … The argument consists of a recitation of the law on qualified immunity. The defendants do not attempt to apply that law to the facts of this case, and the Court will not either.