Case law

Clermont v. State

348 Md. 419 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jan 20, 1998

A cross-examiner must be given wide latitude in attempting to establish a witness’s bias or motivation to testify falsely. Ebb, 341 Md. at 587 , 671 A.2d at 978 ; Smallwood v. … But, in that context, the court’s discretion in establishing the defendant’s range of options is additionally subject to the constraints of a jury proceeding.

Waterhouse v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.

368 F. Supp. 2d 432 · District Court, D. Maryland · Mar 24, 2005

Further, either expert testimony is not necessary to establish common knowledge or Waterhouse’s expert, Dr. … However, this presumption may be rebutted where there is “evidence that the personalities or dispositions of the particular decedents were such that they clearly would have ignored warnings.” Id.

Gennari

District Court, D. Maryland · Mar 30, 2026

The Plaintiff Is Not A “Qualified Individual” Under The ADA As an initial matter, the undisputed material facts show that the Plaintiff cannot establish that he is a “qualified individual” under the ADA, to prevail … To establish a prima facie case of discrimination under the ADA, the Plaintiff must show, among other things, that: he is a “qualified individual” for the employment in question. 3 Burnett v.

In Re Humphrey Hospitality Trust, Inc. Securities Litigation

219 F. Supp. 2d 675 · District Court, D. Maryland · May 7, 2002

Thus, to establish scienter, a plaintiff must still prove that the defendant acted intentionally, which may perhaps be shown by recklessness. … Clearly, to the extent that Plaintiffs have failed to show that the statements were false, they have also failed to create an inference-strong or otherwise-that Defendants knew or should have known they were false.

Victory Sparkler & Specialty Co. v. Francks

147 Md. 368 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Feb 12, 1925

The statute becomes its own expositor when the subject of the enactment is known, and the object to be accomplished by it is understood, and the words employed ,are free from *378 ■uncertainty and doubt, .and express clearly … expresses the notion of the thing or event, i. e., the wrong or damage done to the person; while “accidental” qualifies and describes the noun by' ascribing to “injuries” a quality or condition of happening or coming by chance

Chisholm v. Hyattstown Volunteer Fire Department, Inc.

115 Md. App. 58 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Apr 1, 1997

This is qualified by Article V, Section 5: Members serving on active duty in the Armed Forces of the United States shall not be required to pay dues. … He was, therefore, qualified to sit upon the Trial Board that sat in judgment of appellant. In Most Worshipful United Grand Lodge v.

Brooks v. State

Court of Appeals of Maryland · Aug 27, 2014

The State called a social worker, who was qualified as an “expert in the field of child sexual abuse.” 312 Md. at 271. … In Nurse Harden’s testimony, the use of the word “would” qualifies the verb “verify” with an unstated condition.

Chartis Property Casualty Co. v. Huguely

243 F. Supp. 3d 615 · District Court, D. Maryland · Mar 20, 2017

Although it does not challenge the issue in this motion, Plaintiff has reserved the right to challenge whether Defendant qualifies as an "insured person” under the Policies. … as a firmly established judicial decree.

Blair v. State

130 Md. App. 571 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Mar 6, 2000

Fleig about concerning, you know, what he said about who was the one who brought up the conversation with the shovel, that’s clearly an instance. … The September interview was conducted after Fleig had agreed to plead guilty to a lesser charge, and clearly was cast in a light useful to the State.

Bock

District Court, D. Maryland · Mar 30, 2026

Generally, a plaintiff asserting a claim for disability discrimination under either the ADA or the Rehabilitation Act “must allege that (1) she has a disability, (2) she is otherwise qualified to receive the benefits of … In sum, Plaintiff has not identified an unequivocal waiver of sovereign immunity permitting her claims, so the relief she seeks is unavailable in this forum.

Holmes v. E.Spire Communications, Inc.

135 F. Supp. 2d 657 · District Court, D. Maryland · Mar 15, 2001

See id. at 608 (explaining that under the direct and indirect basis, a plaintiff must produce evidence that clearly indicates a nexus between discriminatory attitude and the employment action (citing Fuller v. … her job satisfactorily; and (4) the position remained open or was filled by a similarly qualified applicant outside of the protected class-someone not pregnant.

Taylor v. Mandel

402 Md. 109 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Nov 9, 2007

Because the husband had failed to raise the issue of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order earlier, Sommerfelt argued that Steinhoff had not preserved the issue for appeal. … Although the legislation did not become law, it clearly demonstrates that the General Assembly is cognizant of third party custody issues. One of our recent cases, McDermott v.

Schifanelli v. Wallace

271 Md. 177 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Feb 28, 1974

Our statute is clearly a remedial one, and the exception to it should be narrowly construed. … In a system of justice which has established as a general rule that all persons should be qualified to testify, and that disqualification should be the exception, there is no sound reason why the survivor in a negligence

J.L. Matthews, Inc. v. Maryland-National Capital Park & Planning Commission

368 Md. 71 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Mar 5, 2002

If the public interest clearly will be hurt if the question is not immediately decided, if the matter involved is likely to recur frequently, and its recurrence will involve a relationship between government and its citizens … It is well-established that after the judge’s preclusion of the evidence in question, Petitioner was not required to proffer that evidence at trial. See Reed v.

Pilger v. D.M. Bowman, Inc.

833 F. Supp. 2d 489 · District Court, D. Maryland · Jun 3, 2011

The evidence must “clearly indicated a discriminatory attitude at the workplace and must illustrate a nexus between the negative attitude and the employment action.” Hill v. … Pilger has not shown that he took leave to provide qualifying care to his wife.

Rouse v. Moore

District Court, D. Maryland · Mar 20, 2024

Clearly, when Congress intended part of the section to apply only to default judgments, as opposed to judgments generally, they knew how to say so. … “Plaintiffs bear the burden of establishing standing.” S. Walk at Broadlands Homeowners’s Ass'n, Inc. v. OpenBand at Broadlands, LLC, 713 F.3d 175, 181 (4th Cir. 2013) (citation omitted).

Robinson v. Gonzales

493 F. Supp. 2d 758 · District Court, D. Maryland · Jun 27, 2007

Due Process To establish a due process violation, a prisoner must show deprivation of a liberty or property interest protected under the Fifth Amendment without due process of law. … Additionally, in July 1995, the BOP adopted Program Statement 5162.02 "to further assist case management staff in deciding whether an inmate qualifies for early release under 18 U.S.C. § 3621 (e)(2)(B) and under implementing

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.

Pomeroy v. Johns Hopkins Medical Services, Inc.

868 F. Supp. 110 · District Court, D. Maryland · Oct 17, 1994

A law “[clearly] ‘relates to’ an employee benefit plan, in the normal sense of the phrase, if it has a connection with or reference to such a plan.” Shaw, 463 U.S. at 96-97 , 103 S.Ct. at 2900 . … Plaintiffs rely on this language to argue that their claims qualify as “run-of-the-mill” state tort law claims which affect only remotely their benefit plan.

First Maryland Leasecorp v. Cherry Hill Sand & Gravel Co.

51 Md. App. 528 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · May 6, 1982

following language: "In the case now before us, each guardian-designate, after filing a notice of appeal, signified his acceptance of the trial court’s decree *533 and his appointment under it by submitting his bond, thereby qualifying … The foregoing excerpt clearly establishes that the appellant has, at the very least, acted in a manner inconsistent with the maintenance of the appeal to attempt to obtain a benefit from the reformation decree that is the