Case law

Clinton Volunteer Fire Department, Inc. v. Board of County Commissioners

259 Md. 456 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Nov 30, 1970

Schultz and Gover, or of other employees of the Fire Protection Department, I could not have approved them or certified them for payroll purposes since such changes would clearly not *466 conform to the provisions of the … This letter also established that the Merit Board had not established the positions of Captain or Lieutenant in the Fire Protection Department, had not set salary scales or standards for those positions, and Schultz and Gover

Kelly v. ACTS Retirement-Life Communities, Inc.

District Court, D. Maryland · Sep 5, 2023

“To establish a prima facie case for disability discrimination under the ADA,” the plaintiff must demonstrate: “(1) that she has a disability, (2) that she is a ‘qualified individual’ for employment in question, and … Dec. 17, 2015), in support of its assertion that Kelly has failed to establish that she is disabled under the ADA. (See Mot. at 5, 7). Eubanks is inapposite.

Carlton v. Getachew

District Court, D. Maryland · Aug 26, 2025

to allege personal involvement; failure to state a Fourteenth Amendment claim; qualified immunity; and failure to exhaust administrative remedies for which he seeks injunctive relief. … Mandip Bartels, and Mignon Ernst filed two motions to stay this proceeding and a supplemental 1Accordingly, the court need not reach DPSCS Defendants’ qualified immunity argument.

Rawlings v. Rawlings

362 Md. 535 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Feb 5, 2001

[RESPONDENT’S ATTORNEY]: Clearly he can work. I think there’s no question that he has the ability to work. THE COURT: Let me ask you this. … In Lynch , we noted that "[pjroof of inability to comply, however, does not guarantee immunity from imprisonment."

Belcher v. T. Rowe Price Foundation, Inc.

329 Md. 709 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Mar 25, 1993

So the only question remaining is whether Belcher suffered sufficient psychological reaction from the alleged injury to qualify for compensation. … The evidence established, however, that the nervous shock sustained by her attempt to enter the boiler caused her to blackout which the Court of Special Appeals ruled as "a physiological injury ... sufficient to qualify as

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.

Mayor of Baltimore v. Employers' Ass'n of Maryland, Inc.

162 Md. 124 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Mar 3, 1932

The city, however, goes further, and assumes the power which it contends is implied from the statute, and undertakes to establish a scale of wages to be incorporated in every contract for public work, as though this would … We do- not understand that being engaged in the contracting business as such and that they may be prospective bidders on public contracts qualifies contractors to maintain a suit against the city.

Brown, Bottini & Wilson v. State

470 Md. 503 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Aug 24, 2020

In other words, a rule may be superseded or qualified by subsequently enacted legislation, as well as by later enacted rules.26 See James v. Butler, 378 Md. 683, 692-93 (2003); D. … in such a case did not qualify for a sentencing reduction.

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).

Atkins v. State

421 Md. 434 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Aug 18, 2011

Detective Parzych: I’m not qualified to answer if there are skin cells on there. Defense Counsel: Okay. All right. … On appeal, the defendant argued that the instruction “relieved the State, in the minds of the jurors, of the burden to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.” Evans, 174 Md. App. at 562 , 922 A.2d at 627 .

Langley v. State

421 Md. 560 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Sep 19, 2011

A correct analysis of all the criteria shows that the caller’s statements in this case were clearly testimonial and should not have been admitted into evidence without allowing the defense to cross-examine the caller. … Regardless of the precise articulation, some statements qualify under any definition—for example, ex parte testimony at a preliminary hearing.”

Boyce v. Sembly

25 Md. App. 43 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Mar 7, 1975

The only evidence presented as to the impact of these roads on the subject property was that of the applicants’ expert, qualified as an expert in real estate and real estate appraisal. … The record clearly shows that at the time of the comprehensive zoning the subject property had been reclassified to the B.R. zone by the Zoning Commissioner but that that action by the Commissioner was then pending on appeal

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.

Christian v. O'Malley

District Court, D. Maryland · Jan 27, 2025

The rare exception to this procedure arises where a record clearly establishes disability, such that “reopening the record for more evidence would serve no useful purpose.” Breeden v. … Absent further development of the record by the ALJ, the record before the Court does not clearly establish that Plaintiff is disabled and entitled to benefits. See Breeden, 493 F.2d at 1012.

Oken v. State

343 Md. 256 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jun 13, 1996

The post-conviction court found that the trial court sufficiently life-qualified the jury. We agree. … We find that the voir dire asked by the trial court in this case was adequate to “life qualify” the venire.

Ameriquest Mortgage Co. v. Paramount Mortgage Services, Inc.

184 Md. App. 120 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Feb 3, 2009

The Settlement was clearly a separate transaction, and not a fulfillment of the original loan. … It is not clear in this case whether Paramount qualifies as a creditor without notice of an Ameriquest mortgage.

A Guy Named Moe, LLC v. Chipotle Mexican Grill of Colorado, LLC

223 Md. App. 240 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · May 29, 2015

The establishment’s principal business will be the sale of foods and beverages to customers in a ready-to-consume state. 2. … Thus the reasoning in Price clearly applies to the instant case: If a domestic LLC cannot, by “negative implication,” file or maintain suit, then surely a foreign LLC containing an express bar to such legal action cannot

Siegel v. Comptroller of Maryland

186 Md. App. 411 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jul 2, 2009

And the other thing that I can say is that it appears that the—well, clearly, there can be more than one motivation for any event. … Clearly, the gifts would have been taxable if made pursuant to testamentary bequests.

Sohmer v. Kinnard

535 F. Supp. 50 · District Court, D. Maryland · Jan 12, 1982

THE LAW The Fourth Circuit has established a four-part standard governing preliminary injunctions. In North Carolina State Ports v. … However, the Committee’s report clearly indicates that it did not rely upon those letters as a basis for its recommendation, and that the Committee had substantial evidence to support its recommendation.

Baltimore Car Wheel Co. v. Clark

131 Md. 513 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Dec 12, 1917

There is evidence in the record tending to establish the following facts which relate to the question we are now considering. … He did, however, answer the first question, so far as he was qualified to answer, by saying that he did not acquaint Mr. Long! with the Clark offer. In Turner v.