Case law

Sallie v. Tax Sale Investors, Inc.

149 Md. App. 141 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Dec 30, 2002

[but] rather, an exclusion from coverage,” and coverage could not be established by waiver or estoppel. Id. at 743 , 451 A.2d 952 . In addition, in Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority v. … did not qualify as use of the premises, or as necessary or incidental to the declared uses.

Greco v. State

427 Md. 477 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jun 26, 2012

We therefore hold that the “legal standard” set forth in Hoey and Simmons does not qualify as “not previously recognized” under § 7-106(c)(2)(i) of the UPPA. … ,] clearly placet ] the burden of proof where it should be — upon the defendant attacking the conviction.”).

Reese v. Department of Health & Mental Hygiene

177 Md. App. 102 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Nov 2, 2007

Clearly, the Secretary’s decision was not “adjudicatory” or “quasi-judicial.” … The decision determining that one is qualified for admission is the flip side of a determination that one is not qualified.

Hamilton v. Ford Motor Credit Co.

66 Md. App. 46 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jan 13, 1986

Conduct that would qualify as extreme and outrageous when committed by a creditor should not have to be accepted from an employer. Moreover, Dick v. … these two comments is misleading and unfortunate, for we do not believe that the committee intended to suggest that Maryland recognizes a distinct tort for the negligent infliction of mental distress, as these comments clearly

State v. Matthews

479 Md. 278 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jun 22, 2022

[The evidence] does have … certainly a qualifier as [defense counsel] correctly points out. … The court acknowledged the “qualifier” that was part of Meline’s testimony, but decided that any flaws in Meline’s conclusions attributable to this qualifier were properly the subject of cross-examination or competing

Bailer v. Erie Insurance Exchange

344 Md. 515 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jan 27, 1997

(Emphasis added). 1 The underlined qualifying language included in this coverage provision necessarily implies that some forms of personal injury and property damage are excluded from coverage. … Clearly had this been a negligent invasion of privacy, the policy would have covered such a claim made against the Bailers. However, since this was clearly an intentional act on the part of the plaintiff, Byron C.

Charny v. Pennymac Loan Services, LLC

District Court, D. Maryland · Jan 8, 2025

They first argue that Defendant did not clearly indicate that “QWRs” must be sent the designated P.O. Box address but instead stated only that “[n]otices of error or information vets should be mailed there. … -For these types of QWRs,” the regulations clearly provide that Defendant 7 and in this case did, “establish an address that a borrower must use” to register either type of oye See 12 C.F.R: §§ 1024.35 (b) and 1024.35

Smallwood v. The Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, Maryland: Baltimore Police Department

District Court, D. Maryland · Feb 13, 2025

Plaintiff further alleges that he was qualified for the promotions to which he applied. See, e.g., id. ¶¶ 36, 75, 78. … However, BPD’s status as a state agency immune from MFEPA claims may have changed since the Effland decision and other similar decisions of this Court.

Bureau of Mines v. George's Creek Coal and Land Co.

272 Md. 143 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jul 31, 1974

Frank Zachar, clearly shows that there is a substantial property right involved and one of considerable value in the coal underlying the land in question. … Ed. 979 (1897), that protection is qualified by the rightful exercise of the police power. The extent of that qualification has long provided a source of difficulty. In Mugler v. Kansas, 123 U. S. 623 , 8 S.

Jobar Corp. v. Rodgers Forge Community Ass'n

236 Md. 106 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jul 24, 1964

But, clearly, this is not the point. … Baltimore Medical Center, which is now under construction on the Sheppard Pratt tract of land which adjoins the subject property to the north, and the change in the neighborhood resulting therefrom. *124 (b) The evidence of a qualified

Yesteryears, Inc. v. Waldorf Restaurant, Inc.

730 F. Supp. 1341 · District Court, D. Maryland · Dec 11, 1989

Another expression of the rule, indicating more clearly the rationale behind it, is found in 2 Freeman on Judgments, § 786 (5th Ed.), pp. 1665-66: It has already been noticed that while a defendant must bring forward all … Neither case establishes this proposition. In the first case, Banke v.

Goldsberry v. State

182 Md. App. 394 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Oct 6, 2008

Such minimal evidence plainly does not, by itself, establish the necessary elements of a conspiracy. … Thus, the trial court was well within its bounds to restrict appellant’s qualified right to counsel of choice. E.

Polk v. State

378 Md. 1 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Nov 12, 2003

Id. at 478 , 451 A.2d at 122 . [4] Diehl subsequently was qualified by our holding in Eanes v. … Diehl's words, we concluded, although specifically directed at the police officer, did not qualify as "fighting words" because they were spoken, not as a "personally abusive epithet hurled to invoke immediate and violent

Matthis v. Somerset County Detention Center

District Court, D. Maryland · Oct 8, 2019

They argue that (1) SCDC is not a proper defendant in a ' 1983 action; (2) defendants did not use excessive force; (3) Warden Hickman is not a proper defendant; and (4) defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. … Hollander United States District Judge 5 In light of the court’s ruling, an analysis of defendants’ argument invoking qualified immunity is not

Kenly v. Huntingdon Building Ass'n

166 Md. 182 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jan 19, 1934

The receivers, who are the exceptants, testified that in their opinion the property was worth $6,000, although neither qualified as experts on value of real property. .The property was assessed for taxation at $9,500. … Ed. 696 , the court said: “Wherever the rights or the situation of the parties are clearly defined and established by law, equity has no power to change or unsettle those rights or that situation, but in all such instances

Forbes v. Bailey

District Court, D. Maryland · Aug 29, 2025

of the law; (4) Forbes failed to show his Eighth Amendment rights were violated; and (5) State Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. … Alternatively, Defendant Keene moves for judgment in her favor, stating that she did notviolate Forbes’ Eighth Amendment rights and is entitled to qualified immunity.

Homeside Lending, Inc. v. Denny (In Re Denny)

242 B.R. 593 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Maryland · Dec 29, 1999

Giving due weight to each word in the phrase “sold at a foreclosure sale,” this court finds that the preposition “at” clearly indicates the specific event of the foreclosure sale. … Allen, 152 F.3d 283 , 288 n. 6 (4th Cir.1998) (“[It] is [a] fundamental canon of statutory construction that a qualifying phrase refers solely to its immediate antecedent”), it does not make that term ambiguous.

Davis v. Petito

197 Md. App. 487 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Feb 28, 2011

Leffew and Smith both were qualified and accepted by the court as experts. … Grace and Cordy cases; and that, under that test, Silberg clearly should not have been precluded from testifying. We disagree.

Fabula v. Solomon

463 F. Supp. 830 · District Court, D. Maryland · Nov 15, 1978

. §§ 1396 -1396k establishes the federal medical assistance, or Medicaid, program. … Such a conflict, concerning income requirements, was clearly apparent in the New York regulations at issue in Greklek v. Toia, supra.

Hand v. Allen

District Court, D. Maryland · Jan 14, 2022

Additionally, they assert they are entitled to qualified immunity and that the force used by Sgt. Lowery did not amount to a constitutional violation. . A. … § 1983 must be conduct undertaken by a person, and Cecil County Detention Center does not qualify.