Case law

Nathaniel Powell, Sr., et al. v. Harford County, Maryland

District Court, D. Maryland · Sep 4, 2026

In Harford County Branch of the NAACP, this Court again revisited the boundaries of various Maryland actors’ immunities when the perpetrators of the alleged wrongs were sheriffs working at a Harford County detention … Indeed, like Dotson reasoned, charter counties, through their councils, are empowered to “provide for the appointment of a qualified individual as managing official of the local correctional facility and for qualified

State v. Seward

220 Md. App. 1 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Oct 28, 2014

State, supra, 423 Md. 156, which recently established a right of appeal from the “denial” of a petition for writ of actual innocence, does not apply here, because the “grant” of an actual innocence petition, unlike its … The records, therefore, do not qualify as “newly discovered evidence.” Id. at 600-01 & n.9; Love v. State, 95 Md. App. 420, 430, cert. denied, 331 Md. 480 (1993).

Standifur v. State

64 Md. App. 570 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Oct 4, 1985

Part (1), which is all that came in at trial, is clearly relevant. Part (2), the disserving portion, is irrelevant and was excluded from trial. … In the evidentiary hearing before the court, the State arguably established that Sly 'suspected that the gun was probably stolen.

Wesko v. G.E.M., Inc.

19 Md. App. 161 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Oct 23, 1973

The Court said, at 97: “This absolute immunity extends to the judge as well *170 as to witnesses and parties to the litigation, for defamatory statements uttered in the course of a trial or contained in pleadings, affidavits … The law in Maryland has been clearly stated by the Court of Appeals in a number of cases.

Mamaril

District Court, D. Maryland · Apr 13, 2026

To establish a failure to accommodate claim under the Rehabilitation Act, “a plaintiff must demonstrate that (1) [Jhe was a qualified person with a disability; (2) the employer had notice of ‘the disability; (3) the … no opposing argument suggesting that Plaintiffs amended complaint would be “clearly _ insufficient or frivolous on its face.” See Johnson, 785 F.2d at 510.

Thomas v. State

413 Md. 247 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Apr 9, 2010

He also contends that the testimony was lay opinion that does not qualify under Maryland Rule 5-701, which governs opinion testimony by lay witnesses. 8 To determine whether there was error in the admission of Evans’s testimony … His testimony against Thomas came as part of an agreement to cooperate in an ongoing public corruption investigation in exchange for transactional, use, and derivative use immunity. 3 .

Moffett v. Computer Sciences Corp.

457 F. Supp. 2d 571 · District Court, D. Maryland · Sep 29, 2006

They argue that the Bivens claim is barred by sovereign immunity and because Congress has created a comprehensive remedy for aggrieved NFIP insureds. … “[Sjtate law is preempted under the Supremacy Clause in three circumstances: (1) when Congress has clearly expressed an intention to do so (‘express preemption’); (2) when Congress has clearly intended, by legislating comprehensively

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.

Ahrens v. Ijams

158 Md. 412 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jan 15, 1930

The trustee thereupon qualified by filing an approved bond, sold the mortgaged premises, reported the sale, which was duly ratified and confirmed, and executed the deed to the purchaser which purported to convey the entire … So, in equity the analogous rule is clearly and succinctly put by Mr.

Blackston v. Blackston

145 Md. App. 348 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jul 2, 2002

Blackston’s claim “that he was found in contempt without properly waiving his right to counsel”; (2) “the record establishes that the circuit court adequately protected Mr. … I’m sorry for the problems and difficulties, but if you run into financial difficulty that does not permit you to hire the attorney you desire, you should qualify—you should seek to qualify for the services of the Public

GENERAL ACCIDENT FIRE & LIFE ASSUR. CORP., LTD. v. Perry

75 Md. App. 503 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jun 9, 1988

On appeal, the Court affirmed on the basis that the trial court’s ruling of fact was not clearly erroneous. … When the court acts as the trier of fact, its findings will not be reversed unless clearly erroneous. See Rule 1086.

Garza-Ovalle v. Detention Officer Armstrong

District Court, D. Maryland · Jan 15, 2020

This exception to sovereign immunity “is designed to preserve the constitutional structure established by the Supremacy Clause.” Antrican, 290 F.3d at 184; see Stewart, 563 U.S. … A “prayer for injunctive relief—that state officials be restrained from enforcing an order in contravention of controlling federal law—clearly satisfies [this] ‘straightforward inquiry.’” Id.

Blum v. Blum

59 Md. App. 584 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jul 12, 1984

Our scope of review is limited to whether those findings are clearly erroneous in light of all the evidence. … held that if one of the spouses incurs debt during the marriage to purchase marital property, and that debt or a portion thereof is outstanding when a monetary award is being considered, the value of the marital property qualified

In re: M.H.

Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jul 29, 2021

The Department also contends that, even if the issue is preserved, the Report is admissible because it qualifies under the public records exception to the hearsay rule. … The Circuit Court’s Findings of Fact Are Clearly Erroneous.

Coates v. State

90 Md. App. 105 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jan 29, 1992

Accident reconstructionists, qualified as experts, were called by both parties and testified. … In the case sub judice, evidence by the appellant that one or more of the motorcyclists caused the accident and hence the death of the victims — Minor, Blaylock, and Doane— would clearly be admissible as proof that the victims

Benson v. Benson

204 Md. 601 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jun 8, 1954

Hahn, supra , that an agreement need not be formalized by a writing, and we see no reason to qualify the broad language of the statute by importing into it a requirement that a separation, by common consent of the parties … Gaither, 67 Md. 94 , 8 A. 744 (with appropriate allowance for the number of years during which the pertinent statute has been in force) appears directly applicable: "They [the courts] can construe a statute, but having once clearly

Stephens v. Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance

821 F. Supp. 1119 · District Court, D. Maryland · Apr 30, 1993

[establish] the contract ... Las] an ‘independent duty imposed by law.’ ” Flow Industries Inc. v. Fields Constr. Co., 683 F.Supp. 527, 530 (D.Md.1988). … While the Caruso opinion, which, through Johnson , has become controlling in Maryland, refused to recognize a separate, independent first-party insurance tort, it clearly anticipated that upon a showing of actual malice,

Ferandes

District Court, D. Maryland · Mar 24, 2026

immunity. … involvement or state a constitutional claim, and they are entitled to qualified immunity.

United States v. Taylor

441 F. Supp. 2d 747 · District Court, D. Maryland · Jul 31, 2006

Under the Fourth Circuit decisions interpreting Virginia law, APG would likely qualify as a highway. … In some cases, “the language in question [is] so clearly consistent with apparent purpose (and not productive of any absurd result) that further research [is] unnecessary.” Kaczorowski v.

Shiheed

District Court, D. Maryland · Aug 27, 2026

Defendants are entitled to dismissal or summary judgment on the constitutional claims because Shiheed has failed to present sufficient allegations or evidence to support those claims; and (6) - Defendants ar entitled to qualified … immunity. .