Case law

Jones v. Murphy

256 F.R.D. 510 · District Court, D. Maryland · Nov 26, 2008

Neither are the memoranda part of a deliberative give-and-take to qualify for the privilege. … If the evidentiary basis is not established, the documents should be produced. Id.

Howard R. & D. Corp. v. IMH Columbia

Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Dec 19, 2025

If an ambiguity is present, and if that ambiguity is not clearly resolved by resort to extrinsic evidence, the general rule in favor of the unrestricted use of property will prevail and the ambiguity in a restriction … Costello was not qualified to opine about “project[ed] future earnings, future profits[.]” The trial court questioned IMH’s counsel about whether Mr.

Thornton v. CO E. Muir

District Court, D. Maryland · Feb 23, 2023

under the Eleventh Amendment; and he is entitled to qualified immunity. … Iko, 535 F.3d at 238 (4th Cir. 2008) (citations omitted) (holding correctional officer not entitled to qualified immunity where additional chemical agent was deployed into inmate's cell after inmate attempted

City of Seat Pleasant v. Jones

364 Md. 663 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jun 27, 2001

illegal, capricious, or unreasonable acts; but in exercising that power care must be taken not to interfere with the legislative prerogative, or with the exercise of sound administrative discretion, where discretion is clearly … If this long-established safeguard has become unnecessary, it is not for this Court to change or abolish it.” Id. at 149 , 49 A.2d at 80 .

Dulany v. Middleton

72 Md. 67 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Feb 6, 1890

These limitations of the interests of the cestuis que trust are followed by restrictions upon the power of alienation, lien or incumbrance of the property, with a qualified right to authorize the transfer and reinvestment … Upon careful consideration of the whole will, and all its separate provisions and limitations, we are clearly of opinion that they do not.

Optic Graphics, Inc. v. Agee

87 Md. App. 770 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jun 27, 1991

This definition clearly “is based on the Restatement comment____” 13 Note, supra, at 1061. … On the facts of this case and the inferences deducible therefrom, we do not think that bad faith clearly was established with respect to the trade secrets claim.

Booth v. Robinson

55 Md. 419 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Feb 2, 1881

Here, the stock that was purchased on account of the Steam Packet Company was transferred to the names of Robinson and Shoemaker, who held it as trustees for the benefit of the Steam Packet Company; and being thus qualified … The cases maintaining this doctrine are numerous, and they may he found collected, and the result of them clearly stated, in the American note to the leading cases of Thornbrough vs. Baker, and Howard vs. Harris, 3 L.

Brown v. Bratton

District Court, D. Maryland · Feb 21, 2020

Section 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” established in C.J. § 5–303(b)(1). … Here, however, plaintiff clearly alleges that defendants acted with the intent to injure him by discriminating against him because he his African-American.

Fogg v. Watts

District Court, D. Maryland · Mar 1, 2023

, Defendants seek dismissal of the Complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) or summary judgment under Rule 56 on the grounds that: (1) Fogg fatled to exhaust administrative remedies; (2) Fogg did not establish … supervisory liability on the part of Watts; (3) Defendants were not deliberately indifferent to a substantial risk of physical harm to Fogg; and (4) Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity.

Hunter v. State

397 Md. 580 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Mar 16, 2007

If the child’s allegations were believed, they would establish both the corpus delicti of the crimes charged and the criminal agency of Bohnert.” Id. … Thus, the trial court abused its discretion when qualifying the investigator as an expert because her conclusion that Alicia had been abused was a mere guess and because the groundwork for the “expert’s” opinion was inadequately

Burley v. Baltimore Police Department

District Court, D. Maryland · Sep 12, 2019

Thus, defendants maintain that plaintiffs’ claims “are clearly time-barred.” ECF 29-2 at 6. … But, “the plaintiff must establish that the defendant committed the tort with some improper purpose or motive.

Mayor of Baltimore v. Williams

6 Md. 235 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Dec 15, 1854

first of these cases are, that if a man seized of land in fee, makes a feoffment to the use of such persons and for such estates as he may appoint by his will, by operation of law the use vests in the feoffor, and he has a qualified … These authorities clearly establish the principle, that inadequacy of price, in connection with other sustaining proof, may be considered in a question like the present.

Cohens v. Maryland Department of Human Resources

933 F. Supp. 2d 735 · District Court, D. Maryland · Mar 19, 2013

male colleagues] *748 would mean that she was qualified to perform the same duties.” … The DHR principally argues that Maryland’s “complex personnel management system” “clearly” constitutes a “merit system” exempt from the EPA.

Bauernschmidt v. Bauernschmidt

101 Md. 148 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Mar 23, 1905

It is sufficient if it is clearly preponderating, and upon careful consideration of the whole case we are of opinion that such is its character and effect. … Nor is it material that four of his children held five shares each of the stock merely to qualify them as corporators, and for which they paid nothing.

Attorney Grievance Commission v. Cocco

442 Md. 1 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Feb 23, 2015

“We accept a hearing judge’s findings of fact unless we determine that they are clearly erroneous.” Att’y Grievance Comm’n v. Guida, 391 Md. 33, 50, 891 A.2d 1085, 1095 (2006). … Thus, we shall accept the hearing judge’s “findings of fact as established for the purpose of determining appropriate sanctions.” Md. Rule 16-759(b)(2)(A). practice.”

Umerley v. PEOPLE'S COUNSEL FOR BALTIMORE CTY.

108 Md. App. 497 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Mar 1, 1996

If a trucking facility failed to comply with the applicable exemption provisions and thus lost the right to exist as a trucking facility, it could only continue operations by qualifying as a new use. *502 The Umerleys operated … As this Court established in North v. St.

Green v. North Arundel Hospital Ass'n

126 Md. App. 394 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · May 26, 1999

The requisite showing of prejudice cannot be satisfied simply by establishing that a plaintiff has a physical or mental injury; the party seeking the exclusion must establish that the party’s appearance or conduct is likely … One vital element in determining the standard of care in a given circumstance is clearly the foreseeable consequences of committing an error.

Smith v. Wormuth

District Court, D. Maryland · Sep 3, 2021

The defense of sovereign immunity is a jurisdictional bar. … To establish a claim of hostile work environment under the Rehabilitation Act, plaintiff must demonstrate that she “is a qualified individual with a disability.” Edmonson v.

Clark v. State

306 Md. 483 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jun 26, 1986

The trial judge’s action in this case clearly impaired that right by imposing the restriction upon the defendant’s counsel. … Both defendants sub judice were subject to more than twenty years imprisonment, and thus both qualified for the twenty challenges. Former Rule 753 implemented Md.

Walker v. Potter

188 F. Supp. 2d 590 · District Court, D. Maryland · Mar 5, 2002

The court concludes that summary judgment is merited because Walker has failed to establish that he is a qualified individual with disabilities; thus, he is not entitled to bring a claim under the Rehabilitation Act. … Walker must establish that he is a disabled individual within reach of the Rehabilitation Act.