Case law

Snyder v. Herbert Greenbaum & Associates, Inc.

38 Md. App. 144 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Dec 7, 1977

Clearly a “lost volume seller” is not in as good a position as if there had been no breach, if he is confined to the § 2-708 (1) formula. … Our holding avoids a result that is clearly “inconsistent with common sense”. Our holding does not, however, dispose of this case.

Corporal v. Assistant Warden Butler

District Court, D. Maryland · Mar 2, 2021

for claims brought against them in their official capacity, claims that do not allege a physical injury are barred by 42 U.S.C. § 1997e, and they are entitled to qualified immunity. … In light of that finding, the court does not address Defendants’ assertion of immunity and qualified immunity defenses.

Sullivan v. Auslaender

12 Md. App. 1 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · May 3, 1971

And in each, its finding was that the chancellor did not err rather than he was not clearly erroneous. … The mother of a girl 12 years of age and a boy 10 years of age, she was a physician, qualified as a pediatrician and a pathologist. She lectured in pathology at the Haifa Medical School. 8 .

Rigby v. Allstate Indemnity Co.

225 Md. App. 98 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Sep 30, 2015

Because the former policy’s coverage did not offer sufficient recompense for the injuries and economic damages appellants sustained, they turned to the latter policy for adequate redress,2 claiming that Vanderford qualified … the jury that “a ‘dependent person’ is one who relies on substantial contributions from another person, without which he would be unable to afford the reasonable necessities of life” and, furthermore, that he need not “establish

State v. Mellor

140 Md. 364 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jan 25, 1922

By chapter 450 of the Acts of 1882, the qualified voters of Howard County were enabled to determine by ballot whether “spirituous, fermented or intoxicating liquors” should be sold in that county, and, their decision being … It applies to him who deals in drugs just as clearly as it does to the keeper of a boarding house, a saloon or restaurant, or a hotel.

Robinson v. City of Hagerstown, Maryland

District Court, D. Maryland · Jul 22, 2020

, since the proposed amendments would have also been dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6) on sovereign immunity grounds). … themselves establish that he was detained by officers of the WCSO, an entirely different agency not alleged to be affiliated with the City.

Bartholomey v. State

267 Md. 175 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Dec 4, 1972

In Texas, the jury establishes the penalty in both murder and rape cases in its sole discretion, see Texas Penal Code Annotated, Articles 1189 and 1257. … Later it was pointed out that the New York statute did not offend the “privileges and immunities” clause and the “due process” clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Landay v. Board of Zoning Appeals

173 Md. 460 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jan 13, 1938

A non-conforming use is a use that now exists and that does not comply with the regulations for the use district in which it is *465 established. … That conclusion is qualified of course by the consideration that, as a competent person may give away, throw away, sell, or surrender any property right which he may have, he may also abandon it.

Ademiluyi v. Egbuono

Court of Appeals of Maryland · Aug 29, 2019

This Court has previously indicated that “[w]hether the elements of laches have been established is [a question of] fact . . . while . . . whether in view of the established facts, laches should be invoked, is a question … The General Assembly has clearly left some limited aspects of electoral governance to non-principal political parties themselves by deferring to the constitutions or bylaws of non-principal political parties to establish

Clark v. Seidel

25 Md. App. 139 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Mar 12, 1975

No testimony was taken, but the facts which establish the basis for the legal interpretation on which the case turns are undisputed. … The law concerning interest on money owed was clearly stated by the Court of Appeals in Owens v. Graetzel, 146 Md. 361 , 126 A. 224 (1924).

Spencer v. State

69 Md. 28 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Apr 18, 1888

This species of insanity, it is true, is recognized by many able writers upon medical jurisprudence; and by some few Courts it has had a partial or qualified recognition. … The Court was therefore clearly right in excluding the evidence, and the rulings must be affirmed. Rulings affirmed, and cause remanded. (Decided 18th April, 1888.) Per curiam.

Archway Motors, Inc. v. Edelson

202 Md. 75 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Oct 1, 1991

We construe the reference to discretion as qualified by the succeeding clause. … But it was clearly stated that if the declaration had so alleged it would have been sufficient under the authorities cited.

Middleton v. Koushall

District Court, D. Maryland · Jan 28, 2022

Dep't of Public Safety and Correctional Services, 926 F.3d 97 (4th Cir. 2019), the Fourth Circuit said, id. at 100: “The Supreme Court ‘has drawn on principles of sovereign immunity to construe the Amendment to establish … § 5–303(b)(2) prohibits a local government from “assert[ing] governmental or sovereign immunity to avoid the duty to defend or indemnify an employee,” as established in C.J. § 5–303(b)(1). See Cherkes, 140 Md.

Blitz v. Beth Isaac Adas Israel Congregation

352 Md. 31 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Dec 14, 1998

will clearly and unambiguously indicates a contrary intent. … The first is the dictate *38 that we may not read, into a statute a meaning that is not expressly stated or clearly implied.

Brem v. Drs. Decarlo, Lyon, Hearn & Pazourek, P.A.

162 F.R.D. 94 · District Court, D. Maryland · May 2, 1995

In order to qualify as a medical review committee entitled to the privilege, however, the conferences also must fall under one of the categories enumerated in section 14-501(b). … Because I find they clearly did, I will treat the conferences as falling under the statute without expressly finding that the requirements of § 19-319 were satisfied. .

Rosenthal v. Maryland Brick Co.

61 Md. 590 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Mar 26, 1884

We do not find it necessary to discuss the effect of such an agreement, as we do not find the same satisfactorily established by the proof. … This new agreement makes no mention of any condition precedent, such as that which is set up, or any qualifying condition. The lease makes no allusion to any such agreement or condition.

Jackson v. 2109 Brandywine, LLC

180 Md. App. 535 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jul 2, 2008

The court did not permit such testimony, however, because Childs was not qualified as an expert. Calvin J. … To the extent that the court found that Mitchell was an agent of the Estate, its finding was clearly erroneous.

Balderston v. Balderston

71 Md. App. 390 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jun 4, 1987

Installation of a *398 smoke detector is not so substantial as to qualify as a capital improvement. … Although, on appeal, no trust was found to have been established, the Court held that the parents’ justified expectation of indefinite occupation was sufficient to entitle them to compensation for any improvements they had

Insurance Commissioner v. Property & Casualty Insurance

313 Md. 518 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Aug 31, 1988

Subsection (c) requires that PCIGC establish a “plan of operation” and subsection (e) provides that it has all the powers, privileges, and immunities granted by the applicable provisions of the Corporations and Associations … It is clearly the legislative intent that PIP benefits be paid without respect to fault. The construction of § 512 advanced by the Corporation does offense to the clear intention of § 539 and § 540.

Carroll Plaza, LLC v. Mayor and Common Council of Westminster

District Court, D. Maryland · Mar 31, 2026

The case did not involve a tort claim and therefore did not address governmental immunity. … The Plaza fails to establish that the City’s conduct here was proprietary for governmental tort immunity purposes.