Case law

Rowe v. State

62 Md. App. 486 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Apr 9, 1985

Under a grant of immunity, Lane further testified that on December 18, 1981, he had travelled to Maryland for the purpose of modifying an Ingram submachine gun for Bratt by transforming it from semi-automatic to fully automatic … Clearly, the absolute preclusion of cross-examination pertaining to a witness’s motive for testifying would be an abuse of discretion, but beyond that we must look to such factors as the scope of interrogation permitted,

Larcomb v. Smith

District Court, D. Maryland · Oct 6, 2022

It is well established that the doctrine of respondeat superior does not apply in § 1983 claims. See Love-Lane v. … When considering whether a claim is frivolous, § 1915(e)(2) grants Courts “the unusual power to pierce the veil of the complaint’s factual allegations and dismiss those claims whose factual contentions are clearly baseless

Walker v. Department of Human Resources

379 Md. 407 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Feb 11, 2004

That ruling, as articulated, assumed that the MOU qualified as a collective bargaining agreement for purposes of § 12 — 102(b)(6). … Art. 30, § 1 clearly precludes parallel and alternative procedures for resolving disputes and carefully delineates when each of the two procedures is exclusively applicable.

Alston v. HolyCross Health-Trinity Health Care

District Court, D. Maryland · Mar 31, 2023

As a result, his immune system is compromised. Id. (78:10 – 79:15). … To establish a prima facie case of disability discrimination under the ADA, Alston must show that (1) he has a disability; (2) he is a “qualified individual” for the employment in question; and (3) Holy Cross discharged

Reynolds v. Bethlehem Steel Corp.

619 F. Supp. 919 · District Court, D. Maryland · Jul 30, 1984

Reynolds did not qualify medically for the lump sum payment (Paper No. 20, Ex. L). Dr. … The Board’s duties include establishing rules and regulations, determining eligibility and authorizing payment of benefits. (Id. at 86-87). Mr.

Steinhoff v. Sommerfelt

144 Md. App. 463 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · May 31, 2002

The Absence of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) The second attack that the appellant mounts on the monetary award is that “the trial court erred by refusing to grant a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) … Although the appellant’s challenge is not clearly focused, its dominant thrust is that the fact-finding by the master in chancery was clearly erroneous. A hearing was held before a master in chancery on March 16, 1999.

120 West Fayette Street, LLLP v. Mayor of Baltimore

426 Md. 14 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Apr 27, 2012

Council ], 309 Md. [683] 692, 526 A.2d [598] 602 [(1987)] (“The imminence and practical certainty of the act or event in issue, or the intent, capacity, and power to perform, create justiciability as clearly as the completed … The Trust’s motion to dismiss included some of the arguments made by the other defendants and further asserted that: (1) the sovereign immunity of the Trust bars the complaint; (2) the complaint presents a non-justiciable

Savage v. Charge Nurse Yolanda

District Court, D. Maryland · May 10, 2024

Finally, they argue the Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. Id. at 10. 5 Mr. Savage includes a copy of a Resident Grievance with his Complaint which addresses missed meals. ECF No. 1 at 9. Again, Mr. … Savage, nor the Defendants, clearly articulate his custodial status. However, taking the facts in the Complaint in the light most favorable to Mr.

Cox v. Revelle

125 Md. 579 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Apr 8, 1915

It is within the discretion of that department of the 'State government to decide whether the whole or any part of either the natural bars or the barren bottoms shall be open to free or to qualified public use, or shall be … In view of the safeguards thus placed by the statute around the rights and interests of the appellant, there is clearly no impairment of contract to which the constitutional'provision relied upon can he applied.

Layton v. Howard County Board of Appeals

171 Md. App. 137 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Oct 2, 2006

In the petition, Wyckoff contended that (1) Frisky’s did not qualify for the Special Exception under the HCZR; (2) Frisky’s is not a charitable institution and should not qualify for the special exception use approved by … According to the USDA, that qualifies as exhibition.

Lucado v. State

40 Md. App. 25 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jul 13, 1978

The legislative history of § 461A brings both questions — application and interpretation — more clearly into focus. … E. 1080 (Va., 1909), in which the Virginia court, dealing with a “seduction” statute, said of divorced women: “They have known man, and, possessed of the knowledge which such intercourse imparts, if chaste, are immune from

Zeno v. Department of Education

District Court, D. Maryland · Mar 28, 2024

Indeed, the entire point of 26 U.S.C. section 221 is to provide for the tax deduction for interest paid on a qualified education loan and to establish the maximum deduction allowed for interest. … Factual findings are clearly erroneous “only when the reviewing court ‘is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.’” Citizens Bank of Md. v.

Gilliam v. State

331 Md. 651 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Aug 25, 1993

That finding was not clearly erroneous. See United States v. … Daneman was assisted by an associate is not clearly erroneous. B. Gilliam argues that the post conviction judge was clearly erroneous in finding that “Mr.

White v. Office of Public Defender

170 F.R.D. 138 · District Court, D. Maryland · Jan 16, 1997

Furthermore, when a close gentleman friend of Plaintiffs died, she reportedly blamed that result in part on racism in the Prince George’s County law enforcement establishment. … A party who has removed any possibility of warnings by destroying evidence before a court order can be issued cannot in fairness thereby immunize herself from the ultimate sanction of dismissal.

LaValley v. Rock Point Aero Sport Club, Inc.

104 Md. App. 123 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Mar 7, 1995

. § 14-833. 5 *127 Before a final order or foreclosure may be issued, however, the amount the owner is required to pay in order to redeem his interest in the property must be established. § 14-829. … We further note that, had the trial court executed the order to foreclose when it first qualified for execution, it would not have erred.

Beall v. Montgomery County Council

240 Md. 77 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Sep 27, 1965

All of those who produced the proposed plan are well qualified and the proposed plan and the elaborate supporting data indicating the need for the proposed apartments, traffic conditions, effect on school facilities, the … Permission to establish such a zone was granted (or refused) upon a petition filed by an individual property owner, with appropriate notice, etc.

Arroyo v. Rosen

102 Md. App. 101 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Oct 27, 1994

The circuit court therefore did not err in finding no absolute privilege here. 3 *111 The jury instruction on qualified privilege Having found that Dr. … Bulkley—is clearly marked “Confidential.” The regulations of the university governing the inquiry process reflect a deep concern with the confidentiality of the proceedings.

Henley v. Prince George's County

305 Md. 320 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Feb 7, 1986

We have also said that this discretion will not be disturbed unless clearly shown to have been abused, and that this is particularly true where judgment has been entered on the merits rather than as a result of a default. … Noting that the County was immune from liability for its discretionary acts in determining to release the juvenile and in selecting the juvenile’s mother as an appropriate custodian, and finding that there was no duty to

United States v. University of Maryland

438 F. Supp. 742 · District Court, D. Maryland · Sep 12, 1977

Thomas, she is being clearly asked to improve her service component. This stand is also clearly nonprejudicial to the other members of the Department who have come up this year for contract renewal. … The most practical way for plaintiff to establish that Dr.

Sterling Homes Corp. v. Anne Arundel County

116 Md. App. 206 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jun 27, 1997

Pemberton cannot, of course, stand for the principle that any work performed under any type of permit wdl qualify as a permit for any subsequent construction performed on the same property. … Thus, although it did not say so explicitly, the Court clearly indicated that the permits granted for the warehouse were not “permits” for a refinery that satisfied the first prong of establishing vested rights; this decision