Case law

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.

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.

X. v. Yes Care Health

District Court, D. Maryland · Aug 29, 2024

immunity. … While the State of Maryland has waived its sovereign immunity for certain types of cases brought in state courts, see Md.

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.

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,

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

Horlick v. Capital Women's Care, LLC

896 F. Supp. 2d 378 · District Court, D. Maryland · Nov 14, 2011

Whether the individual is customarily engaged in an independently established trade, occupation, profession, or business; 4. … Clearly, the McCarthy Court did not suggest that an employee would be entitled to enforce the promise without having performed the requisite service.

Norbeck Village Joint Venture v. Montgomery County Council

254 Md. 59 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jun 3, 1969

Olney as a self-identifiable community with its own hospital, schools, commercial area, and theater was qualified and selected as a satellite community. … The record clearly supports, if indeed it does not require, the finding Judge Pugh made that the challenged rezoning was not arbitrary, discriminatory or illegal.

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

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.

Cirincione v. State

75 Md. App. 166 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · May 9, 1988

Nor is diminished capacity an issue in this case because it’s not recognized under Maryland law and that is clearly set forth in Johnson v. State, 292 Md. 405 [439 A.2d 542 *175 (1982)]. … His argument that a death-qualified jury was more likely to have found him guilty has been squarely rejected by the Supreme Court of the United States. Lockhart v.

Coates v. DPSCS

District Court, D. Maryland · Jul 29, 2019

Eleventh Amendment Immunity The State Defendants argue that DPSCS, as an agency of the State of Maryland is immune from suit in federal court under the Eleventh Amendment and Warden … While the State of Maryland has waived its sovereign immunity for certain types of cases brought in state courts, see Md.

Epps v. State

333 Md. 121 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Dec 6, 1993

to be taken when considering proportionality claims in a case involving assault or battery: That an extremely lengthy prison sentence might be disproportionately excessive for most common law assault convictions does not establish … Projecting a relatively small amount of water onto the person of another at waist level or below, and with no great force, although qualifying as criminal conduct if intentionally done, clearly falls at the less serious end

Herkert

District Court, D. Maryland · Jul 1, 2026

“Under that framework, [Plaintiff] has the initial burden of establishing a prima facie case of [Rehabilitation Act] discrimination” and a plaintiff “must show that: (1) she is disabled; (2) she was otherwise qualified … Lastly, to establish a prima facie case of failure to accommodate under the Rehabilitation Act, a plaintiff must show that: (1) she was a qualified person with a disability; (2) the employer had notice of the disability

Riggs v. Winterode

100 Md. 439 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jan 18, 1905

If he is of the character of man contemplated by the Local Law, it is not likely the commissioners could select anyon'e better qualified to determine whether the work was properly done. … Clearly by that provision examiners are only to be appointed when the County Commissioners deem it expedient so to do, and unless they so deem it, by clear implication they are neither required nor expected to appoint examiners

Blum v. Fox

173 Md. 527 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Feb 5, 1938

He qualified and proceeded with the administration of the estate and filed inventories, but on January 8th, 1937, the son appeared in the Orphans’ Court of Baltimore City and asked that the letters previously granted to Blum … Hence, if it should be made clearly to appear to the Orphans’ Court that, acting in good faith, the original *538 administrator effected a compromise of the claim in such a manner as the court would have authorized and directed

Marquardt v. State

164 Md. App. 95 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Sep 8, 2005

Officer Cathcart was clearly investigating the incident and questioning Burns to further the investigation. … These admissions, along with Burns’ medical records from the night of the incident, clearly established that appellant was guilty of the second degree assault on Burns.

Gemini Insurance Co. v. Earth Treks, Inc.

260 F. Supp. 3d 467 · District Court, D. Maryland · May 12, 2017

App. 2000) ] In other words, an insurer may utilize uncontroverted extrinsic evidence from the underlying lawsuit if such evidence clearly establishes that the suit’s allegations are beyond the scope of coverage. Id. … In this case, Gemini does not rely on any different version of the complaint in the Fabian Suit, nor has Gemini sought to introduce any “uncontroverted” extrinsic evidence that “clearly establishes that the, suit’s allegations

Beth Tfiloh Congregation of Baltimore City, Inc. v. Glyndon Community Ass'n

152 Md. App. 97 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Aug 28, 2003

There are, however, nineteen enumerated grounds upon which the developer may qualify for an exemption from the Development Process. See BCC § 26-171. … Article 25A, section 5(U), reads, (U) County Board of Appeals To enact local laws providing (1) for the establishment of a county board of appeals whose members shall be appointed by the county council; ... and (4) for the

Corneal v. McCurdy

District Court, D. Maryland · Sep 15, 2021

Maryland has not waived its immunity in federal court to suits brought under the ADEA and the ADEA does not abrogate Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity. See McCray v. … duties at a level that met her employer’s legitimate expectations; and (4) the position remained open or was filled by a similarly qualified applicant outside the protected class.