Case law

Bontempo v. Lare

444 Md. 344 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Aug 6, 2015

Lare owned 51% of the shares (apparently an effort to qualify for government contracting preferences for woman-owned and managed small businesses). … The Circuit Court’s finding was not clearly erroneous. Therefore, we limit this discussion to Mr. Lare’s conduct. .

Williams v. Broening, Mayor

135 Md. 226 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Nov 21, 1919

“The Court ought not to set aside their clearly expressed will, unless required to do so by some imperative rule of law. Mr. … Afid in connection with those provisos to refer to the Annexation Act of 1888, as amended by Act of 1908, Chapter 286, now codified as Section 4 of Article IV of Public Local Laws, which establishes three classes .of property

Tyler v. State

105 Md. App. 495 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jun 30, 1995

The transcript, therefore, did not qualify as Former Testimony. … Responsibility for Unavailability There is a second, and totally independent, reason why we cannot say that Judge Ahalt clearly abused his discretion.

Petition of Mayor & City Council of Baltimore

Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · May 2, 2025

Information about a donation made to another person or entity clearly constitutes “information about the finances of a person.” … Indeed, even the Compliance Board stated that “donations to a § 527 political organization might broadly qualify as ‘financial activity.’”

MMI Products, Inc. v. Long

231 F.R.D. 215 · District Court, D. Maryland · Aug 15, 2005

The clearly erroneous standard applies to factual findings. Id. at 4 . Legal conclusions will be rejected if “contrary to law.” See Fed. R.Civ.P. 72(a). V. … Certainly a client's knowing participation in the fabrication, in whole or in part, of an expert’s report would qualify. . Daubert v.

Mayor of Baltimore v. Polakoff

233 Md. 1 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Dec 11, 1963

* interpret Section 32 to mean that the Board must grant an exception unless it can demonstrate from the evidence before it that such action would not fall within the provisions, guides and standards of Section 35 (j), qualified … The Court said (at p. 638): “* * * when the legislative body of a municipality adopts a comprehensive zoning plan, exceptions should be allowed only in such cases as are clearly exceptions in fact to the purposes of the ordinance

State v. J. M. Seney Co.

134 Md. 437 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · May 14, 1919

It is the incidents which give character to the business, affecting it with evil, it was thought, provoking therefore against it the power' of the States and taking away from it the immunity it else might have. … S. 606 ); between acts directed against a regularly established dealer and one not so established (Central Lumber Co. v. South Dakota, 226 U.

Herring v. State

198 Md. App. 60 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Mar 31, 2011

A critical component of that principle, however, is the qualifying clause “because it must.” It is not with any sense of satisfaction that a court reverses on a technicality. … This appeal is not a case of outraged innocence qualifying for an act of grace. [Emphasis in original]. In sum, we find neither error nor abuse of discretion.

Harvey v. Marshall

389 Md. 243 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Oct 14, 2005

We therefore conclude that, although the language in Jessica G. is instructive as to the generally broad scope of § 5-1038(b), it aids *273 little ill terms of determining when that broad scope is qualified or narrowed by … established under § 10-108.7 of this subtitle; and (9) use established legal processes to enforce court orders to pay support. § 10 — 108(a). 21 .

Waine v. State

37 Md. App. 222 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Sep 9, 1977

The main concern of the police, therefore, would be to establish an accurate list to protect them from false claims. … that proof of one tends to establish the other, and (5) the identity of the person charged with the commission of a crime on trial.

Storch v. Payne

579 F. Supp. 1074 · District Court, D. Maryland · Jun 2, 1983

Presumably, she now qualifies for higher-paying State jobs than she did when this litigation commenced. … She did not have a law degree, which was clearly a requirement for the position she sought. Both males occupying the position did have law degrees.

Robinson v. City of Hagerstown, Maryland

District Court, D. Maryland · Oct 28, 2020

Comm’rs, 945 F.2d 716, 724 (4th Cir. 1991) (“A claim of inadequate training under section 1983 cannot be 2 This Court incorporates by reference its analysis of qualified immunity from its April 30, 2020 Memorandum Opinion … The fact that, on both occasions, the officers promptly released Robinson when the mistaken identity became evident is strong, if not conclusive, evidence that their actions would be protected by qualified immunity.

Crise v. Maryland General Hospital, Inc.

212 Md. App. 492 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jun 27, 2013

Sherman, 234 Md. 179, 181 , 198 A.2d 71 (1964); and whether a defendant possesses qualified immunity, Artis v. Cyphers, 100 Md.App. 633 , 653-54 & n. 3, 642 A.2d 298 , aff'd, 336 Md. 561 , 649 A.2d 838 (1994). … Assoc., 54 Md.App. 685, 695 , 461 A.2d 7 (1983) (stating it is “axiomatic that a qualified medical expert can render an opinion as to whether a hospital did or did not comply with applicable standards of care ... permitting

Edenbaum v. Schwarcz-Osztreicherne

165 Md. App. 233 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Oct 28, 2005

Later, however, Colson qualified his answer, stating that he was talking about “cash flow” and not “profits.” … Thus, the “salary” she was to receive was clearly intended to compensate for her work in that capacity.

Bonds v. MICHAEL LEAVITT

647 F. Supp. 2d 541 · District Court, D. Maryland · Aug 13, 2009

Congress sought to create a broad shield of protection in these three statutes that would immunize employees from any discrimination, retaliation, or arbitrary decisionmaking. … Finally, even if Defendants’ other acts were to qualify as adverse employment actions, for reasons stated in greater detail below, Dr.

Goldman v. Crowther

147 Md. 282 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Feb 3, 1925

The danger inherent in any departure from these prin- *296 ciples is forcibly and clearly pointed out by Mr. Justice Holmes in Penn. Coal Co. v. Mahon, 260 U. … When this seemingly absolute protection is found to be qualified by the police power, the natural tendency of human nature is extend the qualification more and more until at last private property disappears.

Motor Vehicle Administration v. Chamberlain

326 Md. 306 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Apr 14, 1992

When the language is clearly consistent with the apparent purpose of the statute and the result is not absurd, no further research is required. Kaczorowski, 309 Md. at 515 , 525 A.2d at 633 . … Specifically, it determined that precluding those drivers who refuse to take a chemical test from qualifying for a restrictive license, while permitting those who take it, but fail, to qualify was a violation of due process

Davis, III v. Parsons

District Court, D. Maryland · Aug 31, 2022

Conclusion Defendants’ qualified immunity defense is unavailing because there exists a material dispute of fact regarding whether the conduct allegedly violative of Davis’s constitutional … Although it is true that qualified immunity is ordinarily determined at the summary judgment stage of litigation, see Wilson v.

Poe v. Philadelphia Casualty Co.

118 Md. 347 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jun 12, 1912

United Surety Company, these complainants were appointed receivers for said United Surety Company and duly qualified as such, and have since, on May 23, 1911, under the authority and direction of said Court, paid said judgment … The distinction which is decisive of this case is now firmly established, and is nowhere more clearly stated than in Amer. Emp. Liability Ins. Co. v. Fordyce, 36 S. W.

Laser v. Wilson

58 Md. App. 434 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Apr 10, 1984

To the extent that the inspector changed his mind regarding the interpretation of the illusory code, he was not offered or qualified as an expert in anything, let alone legal interpretation of county laws. … Clearly their conduct was not negligent as a matter of law. They were not required to put a leash or chain on Adam and hold him in one place by the lead.”