Case law

Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp. v. Maryland Glass Corp.

618 F. Supp. 1410 · District Court, D. Maryland · Oct 7, 1985

Those plans are tax qualified, defined benefit pension plans covered by Title IV of ERISA (Paper No. 34, Ex. C at 8-1, 8-2 & 8-3). … Therefore, the court will establish February 25, 1981 as the date on which the employees had notice of plan termination. 3) Setting the Date Having established that employees had notice of plan termination no earlier than

Wright

District Court, D. Maryland · Mar 11, 2026

The ADA prohibits employers from discriminating against otherwise “qualified individual[s] on the basis of disability.” 42 U.S.C. § 12112(a)–(b). … Plaintiff has not established that he is likely to succeed on the merits of his claims.

Dallam v. Dallam's Lessee

7 H. & J. 220 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jun 15, 1826

there used, did not mean an indefinite failure of issue, but were explained and restiiclod by the words “living William,” to mean a dying by Thomas without i«sne living, in the lifetime of William: and were not *238 used to qualify … Their whole opinion is bottomed upon a denial of what is now deemed one of the best established axioms of the law, “that by last will and testament a fee may be limited upon a fee.”

In Re RAC Mortgage Investment Corp. Securities Litigation

765 F. Supp. 860 · District Court, D. Maryland · May 15, 1991

Under § 11 plaintiffs need only show a material misstatement or omission to establish a prima fa-cie case. See Herman & MacLean v. Huddleston, 459 U.S. 375, 382 , 103 S.Ct. 683, 687 , 74 L.Ed.2d 548 (1983). … against risks created by fluctuations in market interest rates” but. cautioned that “no hedging strategy can completely insulate the Company from such risks” and that “certain of the tests that the Company must satisfy to qualify

Unger v. State

427 Md. 383 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · May 24, 2012

The Majority *431 opinion should articulate clearly why this was necessary. … Perry, 357 Md. at 97 , 741 A.2d at 1194 (“it is sometimes advisable to correct a decision or decision wrongly made in the first instance, if it is found that the decision is clearly wrong and contrary to other established

Varriale v. State

444 Md. 400 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Aug 11, 2015

Clearly, the investigation was of a specific alleged crime (indicated by a case number) that is highly unlikely to have been the cold case burglary occurring four years earlier. . … The DNA comparison in Notti very clearly tracks King. The suspect was convicted, and after his conviction, his DNA profile was run through CODIS and matched to DNA left at a murder scene. Notti, 71 P.3d at 1235 .

Doe v. Montgomery County Board of Education

District Court, D. Maryland · May 30, 2025

Second, the Board argues that Doe is not entitled to punitive damages because it has not waived sovereign immunity for sovereign immunity claims. … Arguably, the intervening summer holiday could be a factor in assessing whether the lapse in time qualifies as an adequate temporal link.

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.

Richardson v. State

14 Md. App. 487 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Feb 16, 1972

He estimated the time of the injury at about 3:00-3:30 p.m. on April 1; however, he qualified this estimate by stating that it was “a very gross estimate because there is no way we can determine when a wound occurred, when … Applying the rule enunciated in Williams, supra, and Metz, supra to the evidence in its totality, we conclude that Judge Murphy as trier of the fact was not clearly in error in finding beyond a reasonable doubt that the appellant

Freed v. D.R.D. Pool Service, Inc.

186 Md. App. 477 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jul 6, 2009

If these elements are established the plaintiff is entitled to recover. … Modell’s specialty and experience was certainly qualified to testify as to the physical effect that ingestion of water would have on the lungs, heart and brain of a healthy five-year-old.

Smith v. State

6 Md. App. 59 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Feb 10, 1969

of due process of law, pursuant to the exclusionary rules of Wade and Gilbert, 4 We note that the rules of law of this State relating to identification evidence existing prior to Wade and Gilbert are still effective as qualified … The corpus delicti of robbery with a deadly weapon and assault and battery distinct from, the robbery were clearly established.

Hood-Wilson v. Board of Trustees of the Community College of Baltimore County

District Court, D. Maryland · Aug 3, 2020

employment action, or by relying on the burden shifting scheme established by the United States Supreme Court in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. … Corp., 988 F.2d 507, 511 (4th Cir. 1993), “the similarity between comparators and the seriousness of their respective offenses must be clearly established in order to be meaningful.” Lightner v.

Law v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore

78 F. Supp. 346 · District Court, D. Maryland · Jun 18, 1948

When this case was tried in 1942 it appears quite clearly that the Carroll Park course did not afford facilities for golfers substantially equal to any of the three other City courses. … Nor is it meant to rule that it is not within the power of the *351 Board in its judgment, pursuant to the general policy of segregation, to establish separate golf courses for white and colored citizens.

County Commissioners v. State Ex Rel. Stansbury

107 Md. 210 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jan 8, 1908

this draw, could as well be determined by the jury as by this witness, who was not shown to possess any special skill or knowledge, derived from, or relating to, any trade, profession, or technical pursuit, which would qualify … There is- no contradiction of any of the material facts stated in the foregoing summary of the evidence in the case, and we think it clearly appears therefrom that the plaintiff was grossly negligent and that his death was

Potomac Valley Orthopaedic Associates v. Maryland State Board of Physicians

417 Md. 622 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jan 24, 2011

It is a well-established rule of statutory construction that a statute should be read so that no word, clause, sentence or phrase is rendered superfluous or nugatory.... … As the Board and the Attorney General have pointed out, a contrary conclusion would offend several well established principles of statutory construction.

(2000)

85 Op. Att'y Gen. 120 · Maryland Attorney General Reports · May 19, 2000

The Constitution expressly qualifies this grant of authority by specifying that the petition procedures and forms prescribed by the General Assembly must not conflict with Article XVI. … The provision dealing with the form of, and procedures for verifying, "petitions filed under Article XI-A or Article XVI of the Constitution," Former Article 33, § 23-3, clearly assigned authority over those matters to the

Jones v. State

173 Md. App. 430 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Mar 29, 2007

The letter agreement, he argues, gave him immunity to all crimes linked to the .22 caliber handgun. … Clearly, the letter was not an explicit offer not to prosecute appellant for any part in the events of March 13.

Medical Management & Rehabilitation Services, Inc. v. Maryland Department of Health & Health Hygiene

225 Md. App. 352 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Oct 28, 2015

2 Qualifying conditions are set forth in a “Table of Rare and Expensive Disease” in the Code of Maryland Regulations (“COMAR”). COMAR 10.09.69.17. through the REM program. … The circuit court, in granting the Department’s Motion to Dismiss, expressly stated 9 that MMARS had “clearly not exhausted [all] administrative remedies.”

MEMC Electronic Materials, Inc. v. BP Solar International, Inc.

196 Md. App. 318 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Dec 3, 2010

Richter, 280 Md. 332, 335-36 , 373 A.2d 923 (1977) (holding that a purchase order and bill of sale established the existence of an oral contract and satisfied the Statute). … Nevertheless, “[djespite its broad discretion, a trial court’s decision to admit or reject expert testimony is reviewable on appeal and may be reversed if it is founded on an error of law or if the trial court *356 clearly

Harris

District Court, D. Maryland · Nov 4, 2025

Because “[u]nder the principle of sovereign immunity, the United States cannot be sued without Congress’s consent,” Evans v. … The complaint does not clearly allege any injury related to this delay, as Harris has simply asked this Court to adjudicate his claims instead of waiting for the EEOC.