Case law

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.

Robinson v. City of Mount Rainier, Maryland

District Court, D. Maryland · Mar 31, 2021

The qualified immunity defense “shield[s] [government agents] from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … “To defeat a motion to dismiss asserting qualified immunity, a plaintiff must allege a violation of a legal right that was clearly established at the time of the misconduct.” Waker v. Owen, No.

Parker v. Columbia Bank

91 Md. App. 346 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Apr 14, 1992

The bank concedes that a “limited exception to the parol evidence rule permits the introduction of promissory fraud to establish that a written contract was fraudulently induced.” See Schmidt v. … The Parkers have merely alleged that Columbia failed to take certain actions that Columbia was clearly not required to take under the loan agreement.

Director of Patuxent Institution v. DANIELS OF PATUXENT INSTITUTION

243 Md. 16 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jun 17, 1966

The relationship between the professional staff and the inmate population is generally good. (4) The institution makes continuous efforts to recruit qualified professional personnel of high caliber and does maintain salary … Salary levels for the professional personnel at Patuxent are sufficient to attract and hold qualified personnel.

Corrie's Case

2 Md. Ch. 488 · High Court of Chancery of Maryland · May 31, 1830

That provision of the federal constitution, which declares that the citizens of each state shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states; (q) looks to other privileges, such as the … And by a comity, now prevalent among all civilized nations, founded on this concession to living owners, qualified by a proper regard to itself and its citizens, an administration granted under the law of the deceased’s domicil

Shaw v. University of Maryland, College Park

District Court, D. Maryland · Feb 3, 2023

Third, Plaintiff claims that he was terminated, which is clearly an adverse employment action. … However, when a plaintiff’s claim relies on comparator information, the similarity to comparators must be clearly established. Swaso v. Onslow Cnty. Bd. of Educ., 698 F. App’x 745, 748 (4th Cir. 2017).

Lawrence v. State

103 Md. 17 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jan 24, 1906

The worthless character of the stock in question was one fact to be proved by the State as having relevancy to establish the charge in the indictment. … certain disease which would tend to connect him with the crime with which he was charged was not admissible as evidence against him; but said in the course of the opinion in the case “there are, of course, limitations as to immunity

Marcantonio v. Moen

177 Md. App. 664 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Dec 24, 2007

Absent such testimony, [plaintiffs have failed to establish the element of probable cause. (Emphasis added.) … A number of jurisdictions have not adopted the loss of chance doctrine, while others have not clearly resolved whether to recognize the doctrine.

Wallach v. Board of Education

99 Md. App. 386 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Feb 28, 1994

Rule l-502(a) provides: For the purpose of attacking the credibility of a witness, evidence that the witness has been convicted of a crime shall be admitted if elicited from the witness or established by public record during … This case clearly turns on the credibility of Wallach as a witness. Wallach is the plaintiff in this case, and is one of three witnesses testifying on his behalf.

Draughn v. McCarthy

District Court, D. Maryland · Dec 1, 2021

“It is well established that the United States Government, as sovereign, is immune from suit unless it consents to be sued.” Khatami v. Compton, 844 F. Supp. 2d 654, 663 (D. Md. 2012) (quoting Gould v. U.S. … Under this framework, Plaintiff must first establish a prima facie case of discrimination.

Wal Mart Stores, Inc. v. Holmes

416 Md. 346 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Oct 25, 2010

The impact of the right being derivative is that a surviving spouse that claims to be a qualified beneficiary of the covered employee’s right to compensation “steps into the shoes” of that employee. … Section 9-632(d) clearly contemplates an obligation that has been imposed by a court order or by lawful agreement and the Commission correctly viewed it that way.

Sugarloaf Alliance v. Frederick Cnty.

Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · May 1, 2025

Did the circuit court abuse its discretion or clearly err in awarding Sugarloaf only $25,000 in attorneys’ fees? The County cross-appealed timely. … It clearly managed to identify the responsive documents before submitting the Vaughn indices on August 16.

Brewer v. State

220 Md. App. 89 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Oct 29, 2014

Photographs of the vestibule introduced as exhibits at the 1 Whether the area in front of the main front door would technically qualify as a “vestibule,” or the “first threshold of the building,” William … I think here we are clearly in the Plain View Doctrine.

Carrington v. Dorsey

District Court, D. Maryland · Dec 14, 2020

Forst, 4 F.3d 244, 250 (4th Cir. 1993), “[t]his principle only applies . . . if all facts necessary to the affirmative defense ‘clearly appear[ ] on the face of the complaint.’” … The Eleventh Amendment did not create sovereign immunity. Rather, it preserved the sovereign immunity that the states enjoyed prior to the formation of the Union. See Alden v.

Hartford Insurance v. Manor Inn of Bethesda, Inc.

94 Md. App. 225 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Dec 29, 1992

First, the statute’s drafters clearly never envisioned the relative ease and frequency with which automobiles are stolen today. … The State does not raise the defense of governmental immunity on this appeal. Accordingly, we will not address that issue. Md.Rule 8-131.

Hagez v. State

131 Md. App. 402 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Apr 3, 2000

Documents in the car established Mr. Hagez’s residence at 2012 Fon-Du-Lac Road in Richmond. … We concluded that appellant did not qualify for post conviction relief, stating: ‘When the conviction was reversed and the judgment was vacated, the applicant was no longer qualified for the post conviction act.”

Bowie Inn, Inc. v. City of Bowie

274 Md. 230 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Mar 24, 1975

In Kuhn , the Court examined the statute and found that the classification had no rational relationship to the protection of the public health, safety or morals since the cosmetologists were qualified to perform the services … The enactment of the deposit ordinance is clearly within this express grant of power set forth in § 2 (14).

State of Maryland Commission on Human Relations v. Freedom Express

375 Md. 2 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jun 6, 2003

Art. 2B of the Maryland Code clearly gives the Board the power to render a decision over the class of cases within which the present case falls. … Karasek’s complaints, was clearly not acting “palpably without jurisdiction.”

Plein v. Department of Labor

369 Md. 421 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jun 12, 2002

An offer of greater pay by another employer to induce the claimant’s voluntary termination does not qualify; because such offers are conditions of the offered employment and thus only relate to the conditions of the future … This Court also has recognized that “it is sometimes advisable to correct a decision or decisions wrongly made in the first instance if it is found that the decision is clearly wrong and contrary to other established principles

Consumer Protection Division v. Luskin's, Inc.

120 Md. App. 1 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Feb 26, 1998

The next most prominent language listed the purchase amounts necessary to qualify for the “big gift for two.” … Maryland common law principles are well-established and here applicable.