Case law

Key Government Finance, Inc. v. E3 Enterprises Inc.

923 F. Supp. 2d 733 · District Court, D. Maryland · Feb 8, 2013

Belvoir Garrison and the [Prime Army Contract] was removed in favor of another funding vehicle for which E3 did not qualify.” (ECF No. 18-2, Fernandez Decl. ¶ 3). … November 23, 2010, KGF sent a letter to Meridian stating that “[ t]he [Army’s] decision not to exercise the option year to continue services under the Prime [Army] Contract in lieu of soliciting new offers for copier services clearly

Ogueri v. Kinney

District Court, D. Maryland · Feb 22, 2024

entitled to qualified immunity. … Although there may be some overlap regarding individuals involved in both incidents, no Defendants are clearly named in the supplement. See generally ECF No. 7.

(2004)

89 Op. Att'y Gen. 172 · Maryland Attorney General Reports · Nov 3, 2004

Maryland law provides for the establishment of several special funds to carry out the State Unemployment Insurance Law. … The SAEF law clearly contemplates that the Fund may be used for such costs in its capacity as a revolving fund pending federal reimbursement.

United States v. Bailey

322 F. Supp. 3d 661 · District Court, D. Maryland · May 24, 2017

Even then, a trial judge need admit only that evidence which qualifies or explains the evidence offered by the opponent. The test is conjunctive. … To the extent however that such evidence, otherwise inadmissible, tends to deny, explain, modify, qualify, counteract, repel, disprove or shed light on the evidence offered by the opponent, the evidence may be admitted provided

Webster v. State

359 Md. 465 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jun 29, 2000

subject to reinterpretation, that the trial court had no authority to reduce a sentence legally imposed pursuant to mandatory sentencing provisions, simply because the Legislature amended those provisions to remove the qualifying … The Committee believes that the mandatory minimum sentences established in this section should be applicable only to crimes against persons or crimes that directly involve a threat to human life.

Gray v. State

254 Md. 385 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jul 7, 1969

These extremes in result should not be left to the fortuitous circumstance of what court it is. which decides that there was not enough evidence to establish his guilt. … The rule of these cases, which dealt *399 with the Double Jeopardy Clause, has been thought wise because it protects the societal interest in trying people accused of crime, rather than granting them immunization because

Wash. Gas Light v. Public Serv. Comm'n.

Court of Appeals of Maryland · Aug 14, 2018

On May 27, 2015, Chief Judge Romine issued an order, concluding that for “an infrastructure replacement project to be an ‘eligible infrastructure replacement’ under the STRIDE law,” and thus qualifying for accelerated … Clearly, Washington Gas did not discuss using the STRIDE statute with regard to out-of-state infrastructure projects.

Singleton v. Domino's Pizza, LLC

976 F. Supp. 2d 665 · District Court, D. Maryland · Oct 2, 2013

Finally, as has been noted, the declarations and resumes submitted by Plaintiffs’ attorneys establish that they are qualified, experienced, and competent. {See ECF Nos. 75 & 75-1). 2. … Class counsel clearly expended considerable time on this matter, reportedly working approximately 627.52 hours on this case. (ECF. No. 75-3).

Appleton Regional Community Alliance v. County Commissioners

404 Md. 92 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Apr 7, 2008

Second, if the governmental act in question involves a quasi-judicial process, the inquiry moves to the question of whether it qualifies as a “zoning action.” … The distinction between planning and zoning is well established in Maryland law. The Court of Special Appeals noted in Stephans v.

Gregg v. State

377 Md. 515 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Oct 16, 2003

He explained very clearly why he preferred conditions in the Super Max facility in Baltimore to those of the St. Mary’s County Detention Center. … But I am going to— COURT: Well, I am telling you, it will be, if you qualify. GREGG: I — . If I qualify, that is a big if.

Commission on Medical Discipline v. Stillman

291 Md. 390 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Oct 9, 1981

The former announces principles on which the government, about to be established, will be based. … This point is more clearly indicated in Friedman v. Rogers, 440 U.S. 1 , 99 S. Ct. 887 , 59 L. Ed. 2d 100 (1979).

Woodson v. Saldana

165 Md. App. 480 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Nov 3, 2005

Reservists must accrue at least 50 “retirement points” in a calendar year to have that year qualify toward retirement. See 10 U.S.C.A. § 12732 (a)(2). … It was clearly a violation of the Court’s Order. So I’m going to order that you ... reimburse Mr.

Fusaro v. Davitt

327 F. Supp. 3d 907 · District Court, D. Maryland · Sep 4, 2018

Clearly, he was not denied access to the List because of his political views or party affiliation. … Young , 569 U.S. 221 , 232, 133 S.Ct. 1709 , 185 L.Ed.2d 758 (2013) ("[W]e reject petitioners' sweeping claim that the challenged provision of the Virginia FOIA violates the Privileges and Immunities Clause because it denies

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.

White v. State

300 Md. 719 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Sep 13, 1984

State, 220 Md. 29 , 150 A.2d 895 (1959). 1 Nevertheless, several areas of that discretion have been supplanted by principles of law established by this Court. … Thus, there had been “no impairment of the defendant’s right to be tried by a properly qualified jury.”

Devincentz v. State

460 Md. 518 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Aug 13, 2018

His answers clearly revealed the relevance of his testimony. Joshua’s statement that K.C. … Even if Devincentz had established that K.C.’s statement occurred right before she moved out of his house—which, again, he did not—K.C.’s statement would still be too remote in time to qualify for the “statement of intent

Butler v. Prince Georges County, Maryland

District Court, D. Maryland · Jan 24, 2023

Immunities and Remedies Both the Judge Defendants and the County claim to be immune from this lawsuit. … The Judge Defendants assert sovereign immunity pursuant to the Eleventh Amendment and common law judicial immunity, and the County invokes “quasi-judicial” immunity. i.

Mayor of Baltimore v. DeLuca-Davis Construction Co.

210 Md. 518 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jul 12, 1956

The testimony shows that the estimator for DeLuca-Davis, a qualified engineer, prepared the figures for the bid. … The Robinson opinion shows clearly that the form of the action, the circumstances that it was at law, was important, if not decisive in the result.

Ryidu-X v. Foxwell

District Court, D. Maryland · Aug 27, 2019

Finally, the defendants claim that they are entitled to qualified immunity from a claim for damages. Jd. at p. 25. … Blake United States District Judge The Court reserves its ruling on the doctrine of respondeat superior and qualified immunity pending further submission by the parties

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.