Case law

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.

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.

Comptroller of Treasury v. World Book Childcraft International, Inc.

67 Md. App. 424 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · May 9, 1986

For the first time, in a corporate income tax case, we are asked to decide which party bears the burden of establishing the tolling of the statute of limitations. … Specifically, appellant contends that the evidence of appellee’s activities demonstrated that such activity went beyond the mere “solicitation of sales” granted immunity under 15 U.S.C. § 381 .

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

Bell v. Heitkamp, Inc.

126 Md. App. 211 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Apr 28, 1999

Without such facts, the [a]ppellants are unable to establish the causation element of their claim. … We hold that the conduct of appellants in this case, while clearly negligent, was not so extraordinary or outrageous as to raise that conduct to the qualitative level necessary to establish a foundation for the award of punitive

Cave v. Elliott

190 Md. App. 65 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jan 27, 2010

At no time during the trial did the appellant raise the issue of the appropriateness of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (“QDRO”) as a mechanism for payment of a monetary award. Id. at 483 , 798 A.2d 1195 . … In light of Cave's position at oral argument, we consider Cave's argument on sovereign immunity abandoned, and therefore it will not be addressed in this opinion. 6 .

Modular Closet Systems, Inc. v. Comptroller of the Treasury

315 Md. 438 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Mar 28, 1989

.- — (1) To qualify for an award under this section when the agency has initiated a contested case, the business must make a claim to the agency before taking any appeal. (2) The agency shall act on the claim. … The court stated ( 325 F.Supp. at 1247 ) (emphasis in original): “This case involves ... the University’s right to exclude [the plaintiff] under the standards established by section 577B.

State Department of Assessments & Taxation v. the Maryland-National Capital Park & Planning Commission

348 Md. 2 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Nov 14, 1997

As stated by the appellee in his brief, the concession granted by the lease was the concession “in its hotel,” and was clearly intended to be the concession of the privilege for the entire hotel. … In fact, as the Court of Special Appeals observed: “testimony heard by the Tax Court established that the Restaurant was available to serve and served both patrons and non-patrons of the Calvert Road Park.” Id.

Belay v. Getachew

272 F. Supp. 2d 553 · District Court, D. Maryland · Jul 8, 2003

The filing of the action was clearly untimely. The Court further finds that Eden is now “well-settled” in the United States within the meaning of the convention. … Then, if hailed into court on a Hague petition (presuming the non-abducting parent could ever locate the child), the abducting parent would have achieved what amounts to an immunity from the Convention.

Three M Enterprises, Inc. v. Texas D.A.R. Enterprises, Inc.

368 F. Supp. 2d 450 · District Court, D. Maryland · May 5, 2005

Secondly, Defendants contend that assuming, arguendo, that Maryland law applied, Plaintiffs claims would still fail because Three M does not qualify as a “franchise” under, Maryland .law. … To qualify as a franchise under the law, the purchaser is required to pay, “either directly or indirectly,” a franchise fee. Md. Code Ann., Business Regulation § 14-201 (e)(iii) (2004).

Bert v. Comptroller of the Treasury

215 Md. App. 244 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Dec 17, 2013

He instead asserts that he does not qualify as an “employee” subject to taxation: Bert is an employee of a domestic corporation and is not an officer of a corporation. … The filing of “zero return” tax forms clearly meets the requirements of TG § 13-705.

Thomas v. Watts

District Court, D. Maryland · Mar 27, 2024

Defendants argue that Thomas has failed to state a plausible claim for relief as to any claim, and that Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. I. … For the subjective prong, to establish a sufficiently culpable state of mind, there must be evidence of deliberate indifference, in that a known excessive risk of harm to the inmate’s health or safety was disregarded.

Abromatis v. Amos

127 Md. 394 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jan 12, 1916

Under the rulings of this Court on the former appeal the.evidence embraced in these exceptions was clearly inadmissible for the purpose of establishing title in the defendant. … The first, seventh and eighth exceptions are to the admission of evidence offered by the plaintiffs to show the rental value of the property on the ground that the witnesses were not qualified to testify.

White v. Laird

127 Md. 120 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Dec 5, 1915

Stevenson was appointed Supervisor of certain public roads, for two years and until his suecessar was appointed and qualified. … The well established doctrine “that the writ of mandamus does not lie to control the discretion of any tribunal, however limited its jurisdiction may be” was repeated, and none of the exceptions to the rule mentioned are

Doyle v. Hogan

District Court, D. Maryland · Aug 1, 2019

Finally, Plaintiff adds that his practice of conversion therapy qualifies as prohibited behavior under § 1-212.1 even when the “change goal” originates with his minor client. … The Supreme Court “has drawn on principles of sovereign immunity to construe the Amendment to establish that an unconsenting State is immune

Jolley v. State

282 Md. 353 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Apr 7, 1978

It was stipulated that he was so qualified. … We cannot say that his judgment on the evidence was clearly erroneous. Maryland. Rule 886.

Scull v. Groover, Christie & Merritt, P.C.

435 Md. 112 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Sep 30, 2013

To support this form of health care insurance, the Maryland Health Maintenance Organization Act establishes the ground rules for HMOs, HMO members, and health care providers. … CL § 13-4A-02(b)(l). 15 Notably, the statute that establishes HEAU carves out disputes concerning quality of professional service or treatment.

Proctor v. Schweiker

526 F. Supp. 70 · District Court, D. Maryland · Sep 22, 1981

The Secretary found on May 26, 1977 that plaintiff had in fact established a disability beginning August 8, 1976, and, consequently, awarded plaintiff continuing disability insurance benefits. … Gargour are plaintiff’s treating physicians, and their opinions are uncontradicted by other qualified medical experts.

Spinelli, Kehiayan-Berkman, S.A. v. Imas Gruner, A.I.A., & Associates

602 F. Supp. 372 · District Court, D. Maryland · Feb 13, 1985

Although there is no unanimity among various federal courts on this point, these Second Circuit cases state clearly that, before a private civil action may be maintained under RICO, there must be a violation, “that is, criminal … However, the qualifying language in the opinion indicates that the determination need not be applied wholesale nor need it control the resolution of the case before this Court.

Citibank (S.D.), N.A. v. Savage (In Re Savage)

303 B.R. 766 · District Court, D. Maryland · Sep 29, 2003

The matter that is the subject of this request for admission was clearly in dispute and central to the outcome of the instant suit. … so much of it as is true and qualify or deny the remainder.