Case law

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.

Maryland Attorney General Opinion 97 OAG 058

Maryland Attorney General Reports · Nov 20, 2012

Opinions of the Attorney General 365, 368 (1977) (describing the legislative history of Article XV and observing Gen. 58] 65 that the final version of the amendment “established … profession by demonstrating intolerance for unprofessional conduct”) (internal quotation marks omitted); compare 65 Opinions of the Attorney General 445, 449 (1980) (observing that “the primary purpose of Article XV, § 2 clearly

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.

Tharp v. Disabled American Veterans Department of Maryland, Inc.

121 Md. App. 548 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · May 29, 1998

State, 281 Md. 179, 182-83 , 377 A.2d 1169 (1977). *571 What Qualifies As “The Very Infrequent Harsh Case”? … rule establishing the time for appeal.” 266 Md. at 555 , 295 A.2d 470 .

Bryant-EL v. Corcoran

District Court, D. Maryland · Sep 11, 2019

Qualified Immunity “The doctrine of qualified immunity protects police officers and public officials from claims of constitutional violations ‘for reasonable mistakes as to the legality of their actions.” … entitled to qualified immunity.

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.

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.

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.

Williams v. Wasserman

164 F. Supp. 2d 591 · District Court, D. Maryland · Sep 27, 2001

All of those experts were credible, well-qualified, and supported their opinions persuasively. … Chance) were “otherwise qualified” for community-based treatment.

Lloyd v. State Division of Parole & Probation

557 F. Supp. 1297 · District Court, D. Maryland · Feb 28, 1983

The Supreme Court has established that whether or not a given decision should be applied retroactively depends upon the following criteria: First, the decision to be applied nonretroactively must establish a new principle … Clearly then, the reliance factor does not serve as a basis for justifying nonretroactivity in the context of the instant case.

Baltimore & Ohio Rail Road v. Worthington

21 Md. 275 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Apr 14, 1864

Waterhouse, 3 Bing., 314, illustrates very clearly the ground upon which the Court may proceed in such a case, as well as the principle by which its action should be limited and controlled. … Saltonstall, as we understand it, establishes no principle inconsistent with the views here expressed.

King v. Elliotte

District Court, D. Maryland · Jul 1, 2021

and qualified immunity defenses. … The second step in the ARP process occurs if the managing official denies a prisoner’s initial ARP or fails to respond to the ARP within the established time frame.

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.”

Lititz Mutual Insurance v. Bell

352 Md. 782 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Feb 16, 1999

And the only way that it could be unintentional or negligent or accidental in this context will be if they can establish to a jury’s satisfaction that he comes within the definition of a person who would not be criminally … Panagoulis, 479 U.S. 1069 , 107 S.Ct. 960 , 93 L.Ed.2d 1008 (1987); Restatement (Second) of Torts § 895J (1979) ("One who has deficient mental capacity is not immune from tort liability solely for that reason.”); cf. id.,

Burch v. State

346 Md. 253 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jul 3, 1997

It has to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, one or more qualifying aggravating factors, but once it does so, the defendant must then establish, by a preponderance of evidence, one or more mitigating factors against which … The error, however, is clearly harmless as to appellant; he got more, not less, than was his due. .

Programmers' Consortium, Inc. v. Clark

180 Md. App. 506 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jul 1, 2008

There is still a critical qualifying decision that will have to be made. … That is a finding of fact reviewable under the clearly erroneous standard.

Carter v. Bowie State University

District Court, D. Maryland · Mar 9, 2022

Notably, a plaintiff “need not establish that the conduct []he opposed actually constituted an ADA violation[,] . . . … “[I]n establishing USM, the Maryland legislature specifically defined it as an ‘instrumentality of the State,’ governing ‘constituent institutions’ of higher education.” Id. (citing Md.

Kohli v. LOOC, Inc.

103 Md. App. 694 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Mar 2, 1995

) the employer continued to solicit applications from other qualified applicants following Kohli’s rejection. … In seeking review of the AL J’s conclusions, appellees did not dispute that appellant had established a prima facie case of discrimination.

Hebron v. State

13 Md. App. 134 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Oct 6, 1971

The lower court’s factual finding that Hebron gave such permission was not clearly erroneous. Thus the officers were lawfully on the second floor. … It also noted: “[T]he defendant is now represented by Court-appointed counsel, qualified to explore possibilities available to the defendant to obtain a bail reduction: (1) the unique service offered by the Pre-trial Release

Triantis v. Triantis

408 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.