Case law

Levin v. Levin

60 Md. App. 325 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Nov 7, 1984

Whether the Court’s modification of an alimony order constituted an exercise of discretion arbitrarily used or a judgment so clearly wrong that.it should be disturbed on appeal. E. … After establishing that this case did not involve equitable distribution of pension benefits pursuant to the Marital Property Act, Md.Ann. Code, Cts. & Jud.Proc. Art. §§ 3-6A-01 to 3-6A-08 (1980); Ohm v.

Wilcox v. Orellano

443 Md. 177 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · May 28, 2015

Bringing a Claim under the Health Care Malpractice Claims Act The Health Care Malpractice Claims Act (“HCMCA”), codified at Maryland Code, Courts & Judicial Proceedings Article (“CJ”), §3-2A-01 et seq., establishes … We need not resolve whether it was properly preserved for our review, given our resolution of the issue that clearly was preserved. 14 way that she could without court permission

Triantis v. Triantis

184 Md. App. 703 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Mar 26, 2009

Triantis’s equitable interest in the Parcel qualifies her as a “concurrent owner” within the meaning of section 14-107(a). … To establish standing as a concurrent owner under the partition statute, an equitable interest holder, like Mrs.

Richmond Corp. v. Board of County Commissioners

254 Md. 244 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jun 25, 1969

In summary, all of the prior Maryland cases cited by *260 and relied upon by Richmond are clearly distinguishable from the case at bar. … Although he qualified as a real estate expert, no attempt was made to qualify him as a traffic expert, so that the District Council could well take that into account in evaluating his testimony.

Prince George's County v. Levi

79 F.R.D. 1 · District Court, D. Maryland · Apr 19, 1977

This policy and practice also limits protection of the laws to within Prince George’s County for those who may be qualified for positions with other police departments. … The standing of an organization to represent the interests of its injured members in federal court is clearly recognized, United States v. SCRAP, supra, but is not available to plaintiff in this ease.

Pulte Home Corp. v. Parex, Inc.

403 Md. 367 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Feb 14, 2008

, the larger the judgment, the greater both the client’s burden and the lawyer’s impunity: “The [contrary] rule would seem to penalize a lawyer for his negligence when it costs his client a modest judgment but grant him immunity … That established their loss and liability and thus capped the value of their cross-claims.

Jones v. Wayman

169 Md. 670 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jan 16, 1936

He, however, qualified the statement as to drunkenness, to the extent that he could not say how drunk the patient was, but that he certainly had been drinking; that he was bleeding badly; his teeth were knocked out; and that … In the case before us, the question of contributory negligence was clearly left to the jury in the granted prayers of the appellant; and there was no reversible error in the rejection of his fifth prayer.

Attorney Grievance Commission v. Stillwell

434 Md. 69 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Aug 22, 2013

Finally, although it is not clearly stated in the stipulated facts that Respondent knowingly and intentionally violated the firm’s ‘Outside Work’ policy by establishing TCR as a personal venture, his misuse of firm resources … In Garcia , the attorney, knowing that his client did not have the employment background and experience needed to qualify for a position as an alien worker, signed a letter, drafted by his co-conspirator, that falsely stated

Greens at Hilton Run I Ltd. Partnership v. Rollin Building Supply Co.

87 Md. App. 220 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · May 7, 1991

Even if we were to find The Greens’ argument persuasive, some portion of the lien was clearly not released. *229 The property owner has long had the burden of proof to establish the precise scope and extent of any release … The Court of Appeals has since qualified the Bounds holding in Dickerson Lumber Co. v. Herson, 230 Md. 487 , 187 A.2d 689 (1963).

Mills v. Bishop

District Court, D. Maryland · Jan 17, 2024

In Mills I and III, they argue that they are immune from suit for claims asserted against them in their official capacity; they are entitled to qualified immunity; Mills is not entitled to a single cell; Mills has failed … for which he was otherwise qualified; and (3) the exclusion, denial of benefits, or discrimination was by reason of the disability.

Estate of Renardo Green v. John Does 1-5

District Court, D. Maryland · Sep 30, 2023

“Only if a constitutional claim has been alleged should we proceed to the determination of whether qualified immunity shields the defendant from liability.” Id. … Because Plaintiffs fail to adequately allege a constitutional violation, the court does not reach the question of qualified immunity.

Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v. Ins. Comm'r

67 Md. App. 727 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jun 5, 1986

Although the intended purpose of ALIP was rehabilitative, Level III is clearly a dead end. … The evidence clearly established that, despite any inaccuracies, more than enough evidence on the effect of ALIP was before Raimondi to support his decision.

Shabazz v. Dept of Pub. Safety & Corr. Servs.

Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Apr 18, 2024

He argued that Washington, D.C. did not qualify as a “jurisdiction” within the meaning of the statute. … Clearly, the Department had some process or system in place to review the status of those on the registry in light of legislative and appellate changes.

Wiggins v. State

315 Md. 232 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Mar 7, 1989

The plain view doctrine “permits a law enforcement officer to seize what clearly is incriminating evidence or contraband when it is discovered in a place where the officer has a right to be.” … The Court of Special Appeals quoted from the Surgeon General’s Report on Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (October 1986); *239 from the Executive Summary to the Report of the Governor’s Task Force on Acquired Immune Deficiency

Glanville v. The Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, Maryland: Baltimore Police Department

District Court, D. Maryland · Dec 31, 2024

Further, “[t]he similarity between comparators and the seriousness of their respective offenses must be clearly established in order to be meaningful.” Lightner v. … Glanville does not clearly identify the protected activity tied to the retaliation claim.

Lee v. Savage

District Court, D. Maryland · Dec 27, 2022

The plaintiff, as the party asserting jurisdiction, bears the burden of establishing it. Id. … defendant except Davis—are barred by sovereign immunity. “As a general matter, the United States is immune from suit unless it waives that immunity.” Sanders v.

2022 Legislative Districting

Court of Appeals of Maryland · Aug 31, 2022

Ripley, 352 Md. 754, 763 (1999) (“An absolute immunity for legislators, with respect to conduct and statements made in the course of legislative proceedings, is as venerable as judicial immunity, having been traced back … for their legislative acts but that a Governor should have only a qualified immunity for his or her legislative function of vetoing or approving legislation.”

Sonneborn v. Hutzler

134 Md. 424 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · May 14, 1919

There are certain outstanding and controlling facts, clearly established by the evidence, which are sufficient to enable us to dispose of the legal question presented by the appeal. … qualified on that day.. *430 A day or two- after the grant of letters, Mr. Hiutzler returned to New York where he resides.

American Casualty Insurance Company's Case

82 Md. 535 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Mar 24, 1896

It is sufficient if the language used shows that the settlor intended to create a trust, and clearly points out the property, the beneficiary and the disposition to be made of the property. 27 Am. & Eng. … A contract which stipulates for or agrees to such relaxation, and therefore contemplates immunity from the carrier’s own negligence, would be utterly void ; precisely as would a contract purporting to relieve a carrier of

Kendall v. Howard County

431 Md. 590 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · May 21, 2013

The Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit therefore concluded that those plaintiffs did not have standing because “[t]his type of abstract, generalized interest clearly fails to meet the requirement that an injury be concrete … For this proposition, Petitioners simply cite a line of Supreme Court cases establishing that, “if a challenged state statute grants the right to vote in a limited purpose election to some otherwise qualified voters and denies