Case law

Williams v. Lubin

516 F. Supp. 2d 535 · District Court, D. Maryland · Sep 27, 2007

Even assuming the truth of these affidavits and the testimony presented, they are insufficient to establish irreparable harm. … Although these seven components were not clearly numbered by him, in reviewing Mr.

American Finance System Inc. v. Harlow

65 F.R.D. 572 · District Court, D. Maryland · Jan 14, 1974

The Trust was established in 1955 by AFS as a voluntary and noncontributory pension plan for the benefit of its employees. … Rule 23(e) clearly applies to the situation; indeed due process concepts might well be held to require notice, even in the absence of Rule 23(e). Philadelphia Electric Co., supra.

Cooper v. Singleton

217 Md. App. 626 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jun 26, 2014

The evidence clearly established that Mrs. Presnell did not react, when confronted with an imminent collision, as a conscious person would. … App. at 623, and the verbatim requested jury instruction clearly stated: The procedural consequences, once a prima facie case is established, require that the person against whom the presumption is directed

Clarks v. Private Money Goldmine

District Court, D. Maryland · Feb 26, 2020

prospective borrowers get access to the Listing, a private money video training series, a thirty minute one-on-one phone consultation with a private money expert, a “credibility kit” that the prospective borrower can use “to establish … They informed Plaintiff that he was qualified to obtain whatever amount of private loan monies that he requested but informed him that there would be a preliminary fee associated with transferring the requested loan to

Dorsey v. Petrott

178 Md. 230 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · May 5, 1940

On the contrary, the statute is of the kind clearly indicated by the Referendum Amendment as being within its purview. … or interest, merely from the time of its passage, since an emergency act is effective from that date, until, by virtue of a referendum, it would “stand repealed thirty days after having been rejected by a majority of the qualified

Nathan v. State

370 Md. 648 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Aug 29, 2002

They argue that the police clearly detained them beyond the permissible scope of a traffic stop. … As indicated supra, the fact that conduct may be innocent does not immunize it from consideration in determining reasonable suspicion.

Disclosure Information Group v. Comptroller of the Treasury

72 Md. App. 381 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Sep 3, 1987

Clearly, a reasoning mind could reasonably have reached the conclusion reached by the Tax Court, that the subscription lists were tangible personal property, consistent with a proper application of the legal principles set … The Internal Revenue Service promulgated a regulation, Treas.Reg. § 1.48-l(f), providing that “[i]ntangible personal property, such as patents, copyrights, and subscription lists, does not qualify” for the credit.

Maslow v. Vanguri

168 Md. App. 298 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Apr 11, 2006

The trust will be established and approved by the Attorney General’s Office. … Qualifying the rule that rescission requires the joint will of the parties, the general principle has been well established that if there has been well established breach of a contract, and, the injury caused thereby is irreparable

Bloodsworth v. State

307 Md. 164 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jul 29, 1986

It was established that there was human blood on the rock. … Buckhout, saying: “It is perhaps in establishing the ‘fit’ between the scientific research presented by Dr.

Nationwide General Insurance v. Government Employees Insurance

81 Md. App. 104 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Dec 7, 1989

arena insurance companies battle over which company is required to provide a defense, primary coverage, or any coverage at all, *106 for a successor permittee under an omnibus clause. 1 Before presenting the issues, we must establish … It stated, "[H]e [the son] could probably qualify under (a)(2), as a person actually using the owned automobile with the permission of the named insured, although we need not decide.”

Pulte Home Corp. v. Montgomery County

271 F. Supp. 3d 762 · District Court, D. Maryland · Aug 26, 2017

First, Plaintiffs clearly do not plead a physical or complete taking under Lucas . … The Court is not ruling that Defendants are immune from suit, or that Plaintiffs do not meet certain procedural requirements to access the courts; rather, Plaintiffs have been granted access to the courts, and’ their claims

Riviera Beach Volunteer Fire Co. v. Fidelity & Casualty Co.

388 F. Supp. 1114 · District Court, D. Maryland · Jan 10, 1975

He is only entitled to coverage under that contract if he qualifies as an additional insured under the contract’s omnibus insured clause. … Had the original plaintiffs filed a direct suit in negligence against Wareheim, he clearly would not have been an insured with respect to that claim, Bevans v. Liberty Mutual Ins.

Thomas v. Corso

265 Md. 84 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Mar 17, 1972

In 1 Louisell and Williams, Medical Malpractice, § 8.05, pp. 206-07, it is stated: “The duty to attend the patient after a physician-patient relationship has been established is a clearly defined specific duty within the … Thomas was obviously qualified to testify in regard to the routine standard for communication by nurses working with him in the Hospital. The findings of the nurses at 12:05 a.m., in Dr.

Blakes v. City of Hyattsville

909 F. Supp. 2d 431 · District Court, D. Maryland · Nov 14, 2012

Nor do Defendants argue that Plaintiffs position did not remain open or was not filled by a similarly qualified applicant outside of the protected class. … “In the McDonnell Douglas framework, the plaintiff must first establish a prima facie case of retaliation, whereupon the burden shifts to the employer to establish a legitimate non-retaliatory reason for the action.”

Higgins v. Barnes

310 Md. 532 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Sep 11, 1987

We also recognize that Higgins’ counterclaim would not qualify as a separate claim under Rule 2-602. East v. Gilchrist, 293 Md. 453 , 445 A.2d 343 (1982). … Generix Drug Sales, Inc., 460 F.2d 1096 (5th Cir.1972), the court found no imperative circumstances established where proceedings had to be trifurcated.

Ohio Life Insurance & Trust Co. v. Ross

2 Md. Ch. 25 · High Court of Chancery of Maryland · Sep 15, 1848

The same principle is established by the case of Jackson vs. … Van Valkenburgh, 8 Cowen, 264. .Assuming this to be the ground, and it seems too clearly established by authority, and justified by principle to dispute it; and it would be difficult to maintain, that,Dawson and Nor-wood,

Bailey v. United States

District Court, D. Maryland · Aug 11, 2025

Under the Federal Rules of Evidence, a witness may be qualified as an expert “by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education.” Fed. R. Evid. 702. … Orleans, 425 U.S. 807, 813 (1976) (The FTCA “is a limited waiver of sovereign immunity, making the Federal Government liable to the same extent as a private party for certain torts of federal employees acting within the

Shiheed v. Smith

District Court, D. Maryland · Mar 20, 2023

a serious medical need; and (9) qualified immunity precludes the Correctional Defendants’ liability. … CHASANOW United States District Judge 6 In so ruling, the court does not preclude these Defendants from raising the defense of qualified immunity.

Fitch v. State of Maryland

District Court, D. Maryland · Dec 30, 2021

Program established under this subtitle.”). … A party can clearly manifest an intent to bind itself to a contract with another when a definite promise is made in exchange for performance, establishing what is known as a unilateral contract.

Dent v. Cahill

18 Md. App. 117 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jun 6, 1973

a specialized agency of the government delegated with the responsibility and the alleged expertise in the field to make such determinations as a result of the evidence produced on behalf of the claimant, the law is well established … 2d *126 147 (1967), the Court approved a jury instruction which read in part: “[T]otal disability means incapacity to do work of any kind and not mere incapacity to perform that work which the employee was accustomed and qualified