Case law

State v. Smith

Court of Appeals of Maryland · Aug 13, 2024

App. 283, 314 (2023) (“It is well-established in our jurisprudence that hearsay will be excluded, unless the proponent demonstrates its probable trustworthiness by establishing that a recognized exception to the rule against … Continuing objections only apply to matters “clearly” within their scope. Md. Rule 4-323(b).

Schnupp v. Blair Pharmacy, Inc.

District Court, D. Maryland · Jan 27, 2025

“‘[A]bsent ambiguity or a clearly expressed legislative intent to the contrary,’” courts apply the “plain meaning” of the statute. United States v. … But here, Schnupp did not have an immunity agreement.

Bryant-El v. Corcoran

District Court, D. Maryland · Sep 11, 2019

lack of personal participation, and qualified immunity.” … Smith, 71 F.3d 162, 167 (4th Cir. 1995); see also Miltier, 896 F.2d at 854-55 ® Because the court finds no constitutional injury, the State Defendants” qualified immunity defense will not be addressed.

Walker v. Rowe

District Court, D. Maryland · Sep 23, 2024

Defendants argue that Walker failed to state a claim, failed to exhaust his administrative remedies, and that they are entitled to qualified immunity. ECF No. 12-2. … Additionally, Woolford declares 3 Defendants also argue that the Complaint fails to state a claim and that they are entitled to qualified immunity. ECF No. 12.

Marchant v. Hughlett

118 Md. 229 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · May 10, 1912

It was clearly not intended that the note should be renewable indefinitely without regard to a breach of the warranty to which it was collateral; and it was made expressly optional with the plaintiff as to whether a reduction … While the agreement under which the note was given qualifies the absolute liability which the note indicates, yet the suit was brought and recovery was had upon the theory that the condition under which the note was to be

Ritchmount Partnership v. Board of Supervisors of Elections

283 Md. 48 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jun 26, 1978

There are, however, certain powers implicit in Article XI-A which do not qualify as legislative powers and which do not require implementing legislation to render them operative. … As such, referendum by petition is quite clearly a power affecting the form or structure of local government and therefore belongs to that class of powers vested directly in the people of the several counties by Article XI-A

McCloskey v. Republic Insurance

80 Md. App. 19 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jun 29, 1989

Whether the trial court erred in construing Republic Insurance Company’s policy so as to deny coverage for the alleged tortious conduct of its insured, where the facts established that the “business pursuits” exclusion, relied … Appellant's argument is somewhat at variance with the "Statement of Material Facts Not In Dispute,” which clearly states that Sandrus was not looking after "the children of neighbors and relatives," but was indeed "running

Barbour v. Mitchell

40 Md. 151 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · May 8, 1874

We quote from their synopsis, “The principle of election, is recognized and established in this country, almost exactly as in England. … Schley, as establishing the true doctrine as to the obligation of election arising under a will duly executed to pass real estate, in opposition to cases in other States.

J. I. Hass Co. v. Department of Licensing & Regulation

275 Md. 321 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jun 26, 1975

On the other hand, Congress quite clearly did not intend the general duty clause to impose strict liability: The duty was to be an achievable one. … While close supervision may be required in some cases to avoid accidents, it is unrealistic to expect an experienced and well-qualified laboratory technician to be under constant scrutiny.

Hairston

District Court, D. Maryland · Feb 12, 2026

Bedford asserts that Hairston’s Amended Complaint fails to state an Eighth Amendment claim against her or, alternatively, she is entitled to qualified immunity. ECF No. 53-2. … Hairston very clearly states that the harm to him is the K2 smoke.

Pizza di Joey v. Mayor & City Cncl. of Balt.

470 Md. 308 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Aug 17, 2020

They established at trial that they were directly affected by the 300-foot rule. … The Food Trucks point to no evidence in the record that contradicts this finding, and the circuit court did not clearly err in reaching this conclusion.

Gutloff v. State

207 Md. App. 176 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Aug 31, 2012

Under all the circumstances, the record must clearly reflect that the trial court made a reasonable effort to inform the defendant of his rights. Leonard, 302 Md. at 125-27 , 486 A.2d 163 (citations omitted). … District of Columbia, 942 A.2d 1132, 1135-36 (D.C.2008) (rejecting claim of immunity from prosecution). .

Pepper v. Johns Hopkins Hospital

111 Md. App. 49 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · May 31, 1996

He is definitely qualified from the standpoint of education and training, and he has had a hand on him. He was the guy who diagnosed this child, for heavens sake. … Statements made in a learned treatise are admissible as an exception to the hearsay rule if established as a reliable authority by the ■ testimony or admission of the witness. Md.

Bernadyn v. State

390 Md. 1 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Dec 8, 2005

Collins was not qualified to testify about the reliability of the medical bills because he knew nothing about the billing practices of the hospital. … Because, in my view, the statement was clearly admissible for a non-hearsay purpose, the objection to it was properly overruled.

Wolfe v. Turner

267 Md. 646 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Feb 8, 1973

The granting of Turner’s motion to dismiss was clearly erroneous, and the order of 1 March will be vacated. … Clearly, Turner was entitled to act within reason to insulate himself from the possibility of personal liability.

Shoemaker v. State

52 Md. App. 463 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Oct 6, 1982

His revelations to the police were inferentially in return for some sort of immunity and they invite skepticism, though not to the degree they might if he had remained totally anonymous. … Their "basis of knowledge” is thus clearly established.

Watson v. Watts

District Court, D. Maryland · Aug 24, 2022

Watts also contends that she is entitled to avail herself of a qualified immunity defense. Id. STANDARDS OF REVIEW A. … It is well established that the doctrine of respondeat superior does not apply in § 1983 claims. See Love-Lane v.

Hoffman v. UNITED IRON AND METAL COMPANY, INC.

108 Md. App. 117 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Feb 6, 1996

Adverse use for the prescriptive period results in immunity from liability on the part of the user for his acts of use during the prescriptive period. *127 9. … “[I]n any tort case a plaintiff must establish by clear and convincing evidence the basis for an award of punitive damages.” ACandS, Inc. v. Godwin, 340 Md. 334 , 361 n. 6, 667 A.2d 116 (1995).

United States v. Robinson

418 F. Supp. 121 · District Court, D. Maryland · Jul 26, 1976

This completes a vicious circle since the successful acquittal on the substantive offense -would immunize him as to the very falsehoods which brought it about. … Clearly there the jury must have believed the defendant and not the agent to have acquitted him.

In re: Ferndale Volunteer Fire Dept.

Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Apr 2, 2026

Like CJP § 12-303(3)(iii), 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1) establishes appellate jurisdiction over interlocutory orders refusing injunctions. … App. 657, 708 (2024) (quoting Stromberg, 382 Md. at 165) (explaining the distinction between “purely factual data,” which generally does not qualify for the privilege, and “deliberative opinions,” which do qualify, and