Case law

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.

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.

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.

Heller v. Department of Natural Resources

161 Md. App. 299 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Feb 24, 2005

Thus, Heller also established that he was “moved by a concern for the public well-being.” … On that mixed question of fact and law, the documents reviewed above clearly profess Heller’s conviction that DNR violated section 5-908.1.

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.

Everdell v. Carroll

25 Md. App. 458 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Apr 3, 1975

Peterson, a traffic engineer who qualified as an expert in the field, employed by the Carrolls to make a study of the right-of-way and recommend traffic control devices for the safety of those residing on the property and … We cannot say that his conclusion was clearly erroneous. Rule 1086. J. F. Johnson Lumber Co. v. Magruder, 218 Md. 440 , 147 A. 2d 208 ; Vogler v. Geiss, 51 Md. 407 ; and Millson v.

In the Matter of the Hon. Mary C. Reese

461 Md. 421 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jul 31, 2018

IV, § 4A (establishing the Commission of Judicial Disabilities); MD. CONST. art. … And, in my view, their testimony clearly would have been helpful to the Commission. See Md. R. 5-702.

Smack v. Department of Health & Mental Hygiene

378 Md. 298 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Nov 18, 2003

Laws, ch. 347, the *307 product of the deliberations of the Governor’s Task Force to Reform the State Personnel Management System, which, by Executive Order No. 01.01.1995.15, dated June 9, 1995, was established to address … “written reprimand,” forfeiture of annual leave, suspension without pay, denial of annual pay increases, demotion, qualify as, and are, *314 disciplinary actions.

Chilcoat v. State

155 Md. App. 394 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Mar 3, 2004

The evidence was clearly sufficient for the jury to conclude that Chilcoat intended to inflict a serious physical injury on Keene. II. … In Thomas , we articulated restrictions on the nature of the movement that would qualify as “carrying.”

Williams v. State

246 Md. App. 308 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · May 29, 2020

They then become disqualified, not qualified to serve. … We accept the suppression court’s factual findings unless they are clearly erroneous, “but we review de novo the court’s application of the law to its findings of fact.” Pacheco v.

S.B. Thomas, Inc. v. Thompson

114 Md. App. 357 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Mar 4, 1997

Bark, 79 Md.App. at 79-81 , 555 A.2d 542 , that we undertook for the first time to explore the significance of the qualifier “essential” and to ask, “What is the difference between an essential trial de novo and a true trial … The causal connection was not clearly apparent from the paralysis itself or the circumstances surrounding *379 it, nor was the connection a matter within the common knowledge of laymen.

Mills v. Bd. of Education of Anne Arundel County

30 F. Supp. 245 · District Court, D. Maryland · Nov 22, 1939

how it would have legal justification for paying colored teachers less than the minimum required for white teachers of similar standard professional qualifications and experience, as such discrimination would seem to be clearly … Thus it is argued that the plaintiff is not entitled to complain because he is a public employe ; in the former opinion the view was taken that he has a sufficient status as a qualified school teacher by profession and occupation

Blankumsee v. Department of Public Safety and Corrections

District Court, D. Maryland · Aug 4, 2020

Absent waiver or a valid congressional abrogation of sovereign immunity, sovereign immunity also bars suit against an instrumentality of a state, sometimes referred to as an “arm of the state.” … Neither the State of Maryland nor DPSCS has waived immunity in federal court for claims brought pursuant to § 1983.

Panghat, M.D. v. Department of Veterans Affairs

District Court, D. Maryland · Dec 27, 2019

The party who asserts res judicata has the burden of establishing its application. Bennett v. … “‘As a general matter, the United States is immune from suit unless it waives that immunity.’” Sanders v.

United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. GBMC HealthCare, Inc.

District Court, D. Maryland · Apr 18, 2025

As the EEOC puts it, the provider listed the following accommodations: “providing a badge identifying Charging Party as hard-of-hearing so that others knew to speak to her slowly and clearly, a direct way for Charging … An ADA plaintiff need not establish a prima facie case to survive a motion to dismiss, but these elements guide the Court’s analysis as to whether the complaint plausibly establishes an entitlement to relief.

Boyd v. State

22 Md. App. 539 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Aug 21, 1974

purpose the driver must, to obey the traffic laws, constantly note its speed, and as well the speed of other automobiles which pass it, or which it passes, in terms of miles per hour, and so gain experience which should qualify … Appellant contends that the evidence was insufficient to establish his guilt.

Harvey v. Maryland Parole & Probation

District Court, D. Maryland · Dec 11, 2019

immunity. … The DPSCS has an established ARP for use by Maryland State prisoners for “inmate complaint resolution.”