Case law

Durant v. Durant (In re Durant)

586 B.R. 577 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Maryland · Jun 19, 2018

The Plaintiff argues that the alleged conduct of the Defendant in connection with the Inheritance Funds, which underlies the State Court Judgment, qualifies as fraud or defalcation while acting in a fiduciary capacity under … Id. at 40. 8 The State Court's findings, supported by the record in the State Court action, establish *588 each element of section 523(a)(4).

Saldiveri v. State

217 Md. 412 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jun 26, 1958

Even if we assume, without deciding, that the State had the burden of showing the competency of the prosecuting witness, this burden was met when the defendant qualified the girl by asking her on cross-examination: “Do you … Since there was legally sufficient evidence from which the court could and did find the defendant sane, we are unable to rule that its finding was clearly erroneous. Maryland Rule 741 c.

Gordon v. Maryland State Police

District Court, D. Maryland · Sep 21, 2023

Eleventh Amendment Immunity Next, MSP, Heath, and Oros argue that they are immune from Gordon and Jones’ § 1983 and § 1981 claims under the Eleventh Amendment (Count Two in part, Count Four … “[A] person cannot be held liable under Title VII in his or her individual capacity unless the person qualifies as an ‘employer’ within the meaning of the statute.” Hughley v. JetBlue Airways Corp., No.

Huffman v. State Roads Commission

152 Md. 566 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Mar 5, 1927

It may be that the right to abandon a road once established, and to establish another in lieu thereof, is a power of great breadth and importance, hut nevertheless, it is administrative rather than essentially legislative … bridge and approaches destroyed by the dam, another bridge and approaches thereto at a location which in its judgment would adequately serve the public convenience, would be to deprive it of power which the Legislature clearly

Mayor of Baltimore v. Clark

404 Md. 13 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Mar 20, 2008

the Mayor of Baltimore City, subject to confirmation by the City Council by a majority vote of its members, for a term of six years, the first term to commence July 1, 1978, and continue until a successor is appointed and qualified … Rather, it very clearly made “[t]he Police Commissioner ... subject to removal by the Mayor for official misconduct, malfeasance, inefficiency or incompetency, including prolonged illness, in the manner provided by law in

Akacem v. Garcia

District Court, D. Maryland · Nov 30, 2023

Garcia further argues that even if these claims were viable, she was never properly served, and she is entitled to qualified immunity. … Sovereign Immunity The United States is immune from suit unless it has expressly waived sovereign immunity. Fed. Deposit Ins. Co. v. Meyer, 510 U.S. 471, 475 (1994).

Wagner v. Shank

59 Md. 313 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Feb 2, 1883

The gross iniquity of this whole transaction, manifest enough upon its face, is abundantly established by the proof. … There is here, however, no question as to the facts that Locke was, at the time, duly commissioned, and had duly qualified by taking the requisite oath at the proper time.

Massey v. Secretary, Department of Public Safety & Correctional Services

389 Md. 496 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Nov 21, 2005

Clearly, control over prison management is vested in DOC, subject to the Secretary’s overall supervision, and not the “voting public” or, indeed, the Judiciary. See State v. … The question is simply whether inmate discipline procedures adopted by the Secretary that can directly or indirectly affect an inmate’s actual length of incarceration qualify as merely internal management guidelines, and,

State v. Harris

428 Md. 700 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Sep 27, 2012

Clearly, therefore, at the very least, the latter *716 part of the communication — the inquiry as to whether the juror could continue — “pertain[ed] to the action.” … The respondent was clearly prejudiced by the trial court’s failure to disclose the communication.

Tonkins v. Moyer

District Court, D. Maryland · Jan 28, 2022

The State of Maryland has not waived such immunity for claims brought pursuant to § 1983. … These claims clearly represent “a serious deprivation of his rights in the form of a serious or significant physical or emotional injury.” Danser, 772 F.3d at 346-47. As to whether Mr.

Escobar v. Moyer

District Court, D. Maryland · Apr 29, 2020

immunity. … The State of Maryland has not waived such immunity for claims brought pursuant to § 1983. Accordingly, Defendant Moyer is immune from suit for actions taken in his official capacity.

State v. Sayre

314 Md. 559 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jan 23, 1989

This accounts for the established practice in the federal courts that the sentencing judge may recall the defendant and increase his sentence, at least (and we venture no comment as to this limitation) so long as he has not … The Court, speaking though Justice Black, upheld the “increase” of sentence and said that “[t]he Constitution does not require that sentencing should be a game in which a wrong move by the judge means immunity for the prisoner

Shepherd v. Burson

427 Md. 541 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Aug 20, 2012

The Notice, on stationery of the substitute trustees, was in a standard format established by the State Commissioner of Financial Regulation. … However, that does not mean that OneWest does not also qualify as a secured party, as the definition can encompass trustees and agents in some instances.

Melissa and Daniel Willey v. Board of Education of St. Mary's County

District Court, D. Maryland · Aug 30, 2021

immunity. … Since I am dismissing these claims as to Deputy Gaskill, there is no need to review his defense of qualified immunity.

Joseph v. Bozzuto Management Co.

173 Md. App. 305 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Mar 15, 2007

Restricting the principle to its proper use is the function of the qualifying words “in some circumstances.” Judge Gilbert’s epiphany, in Fisher v. O’Connor’s, 53 Md. … As earlier pointed out, certain provisions of the Housing Code were clearly enacted to prevent lead poisoning in children.

SVF Riva Annapolis LLC v. Gilroy

459 Md. 632 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jun 25, 2018

And in this section it appears that the [L]egislature was clearly trying to create the carve out or the exception for the asbestos cases. … But we do not think the Court, while focusing on a different issue—whether the statute of repose defense applied to a contract claim— intended to establish a rule at odds with the plain language of subsection (d)(2).

State v. Amerman

84 Md. App. 461 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Oct 30, 1990

Thus, while the “clearly erroneous” test demands some legally sufficient evidence for each and every element to be proved — to wit, that a prima facie case be established — Illi nois v. … We did not merely refine or qualify the ‘two-pronged test.’ We rejected it....” 466 U.S. at 732 , 104 S.Ct. at 2087.

Malcolm v. State

70 Md. App. 426 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Mar 5, 1987

The import here is clearly that officers in the field are not expected to apply “rigid legal rules.” … We did not merely refine or qualify the ‘two-pronged test.’

Martin v. State

218 Md. App. 1 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jul 30, 2014

Under the Maryland Wiretap Act, he would, assuming that there was an “interception,” qualify as an “aggrieved person,” that is, “a person who was a party to any intercepted wire, oral, or electronic communication or a person … Martin also had the opportunity to commit the crime, as he had been able to establish, through text messages, that the victim was at home the day of the crime.

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.