Case law

Grim v. Baltimore Police Department

District Court, D. Maryland · Mar 5, 2020

Thus, although an individual defendant may be entitled to qualified immunity, the local government entity can be liable under § 1983. See Int’l Ground Transp., Inc. v. … Grim’s constitutional rights is a prerequisite to establishing liability against the BPD.

Phillips v. Brock

652 F. Supp. 1372 · District Court, D. Maryland · Feb 3, 1987

. § 1101 (a)(15)(H)(ii) ], either: (A) A certification from the Secretary of Labor or the Secretary’s designated *1375 representative stating that qualified persons in the United States are not available and that the employment … These factors clearly support certification of a class as redefined. A common question of law also exists as to all members of the redefined class.

Korn v. Elkins

317 F. Supp. 138 · District Court, D. Maryland · Sep 17, 1970

The teachings of Street clearly require the protection of the expression attempted herein. The Maryland statute cannot constitutionally be applied to curtail freedom of expression as such. … NOTES [1] Plaintiffs, in their complaint herein, have also sought damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 , but they have neither pressed, nor established any factual basis for, that claim.

McCann-McCalpine

District Court, D. Maryland · Feb 24, 2026

Watts argues that the complaint should be dismissed because Plaintiff fails to allege personal involvement or supervisory liability and further argues that she is entitled to qualified immunity. … Hurson United States District Judge 3 The Court declines to address Watts’ qualified immunity argument, as the motion for judgment on the pleadings

Hunt v. State

321 Md. 387 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Dec 28, 1990

Major Thompson was qualified to form and offer an opinion on the subject. VI. … They tend to establish that Officer Adolfo was clearly and obviously a police officer who was in uniform and performing his duties when murdered.

Walker v. Board of County Commissioners

208 Md. 72 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jul 27, 1955

This County has been practically immune to depression because the people live primarily off the land and in towns catering to the wants of the people on the farms. … He added that if appellants’ land were zoned industrial and no industry was established, other property in the neighborhood would be depreciated.

Rodwell v. Wicomico County, Maryland

District Court, D. Maryland · Mar 19, 2024

Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed the superintendent of jails but remanded to the district court to determine whether dismissal was proper as to the individual detectives, who “clearly … Public official immunity does not apply to his battery claim. It is well settled that “public official immunity does not apply in the case of intentional torts, such as battery.”

In Re Karl H.

394 Md. 402 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Sep 6, 2006

The statute clearly allows for such contingency planning. See § 5 — 525(d)(1)—(4), supra. … Here the order establishing the concurrent permanency plan is the subject of the dispute before this Court.

United States v. Matthews

11 F. Supp. 2d 656 · District Court, D. Maryland · Jul 2, 1998

The Court held that even if there is a literary, scientific, or educational exception, the Defendant did not qualify because he was not a bona fide researcher. See id. at 421-22. … Immunity enjoyed by law enforcement officials is a topic briefly mentioned by the district court in Lamb, 945 F.Supp. at 448-49, 450 , and is not before the Court in this case.

Wrobleski v. De Lara

121 Md. App. 181 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Apr 30, 1998

This examination was clearly prejudicial error which must have contributed to the large verdicts for the plaintiffs. … In any event, the trial court clearly did not err in failing to give the instruction.

Rivers v. Hagner Management Corp.

182 Md. App. 632 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Oct 29, 2008

Clearly, the approval was implied, through those inspections. … Notably, there was no applicable statute that established a duty of care.

Baltimore Neighborhoods, Inc. v. Rommel Builders, Inc.

40 F. Supp. 2d 700 · District Court, D. Maryland · Mar 15, 1999

Furthermore, whether or not there was recklessness, callousness, or intentional violations by defendants to justify punitive damages is clearly an issue of fact on which the Court is unable to rule at this time as a matter … as a sales establishment within the meaning of the ADA or whether it is only a model unit.

Von Schwerdtner v. Piper

23 F.2d 862 · District Court, D. Maryland · Jan 14, 1928

By his will he appointed his wife as sole executrix; but as she, being then an alien, was not qualified to act, letters of administration with the will annexed were granted by the orphans’ court to his son, who, having been … Congress has clearly manifested by this section an intention to mitigate the hardships imposed by the seizure of enemy property, and to restore it under certain conditions and restrictions to persons claiming under the original

Mangels v. Tippett

167 Md. 290 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jun 14, 1934

After the death of Mangels, his widow, as executrix of the will, qualified and settled the estate through the Orphans’ Court of Baltimore City. … Tippett as cotrustee, unless on the single fact that the trustee and the cestui que trust are unable to act harmoniously, and that fact, as we have shown, and as is clearly established by Polk v.

Ochse v. Henry

216 Md. App. 439 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Feb 25, 2014

Success on the breach of contract claim against the Henrys – indeed, success on any aspect of the post-mediation appeal – was purely academic in all respects but one: it meant that the Ochses would qualify as the "prevailing … An award of attorney's fees will not be disturbed unless the court "exercised [its] discretion arbitrarily or [its] judgment was clearly wrong." Danziger v. Danziger, 208 Md. 469, 475, 118 A.2d 653, 656 (1955).

Travelers Corp. v. Kaminski

304 F. Supp. 481 · District Court, D. Maryland · Jun 30, 1969

This Court finds that the preponderance of the evidence in this case clearly establishes that Davis was permitted by the Jacksons in May, 1966, to use the Corvair as he desired, and that Davis’ loan to Walker was within the … This Court also finds that the preponderance of the evidence in this case clearly establishes Walker’s use of the car was, at the time of the accident, within the scope of Davis’ permission.

Rhone v. Fisher

224 Md. 223 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Mar 6, 1961

This holding, though the specific point is novel in this court, is, we believe, in accord with long established practice here and with American authority generally. … This, we think, clearly failed to raise —indeed excluded—loss of earnings for the lost years as a ground of objection to the instructions, and this question is therefore not reviewable by us.

Parkway Neuroscience v. Katz, Abosch, etc., PA

Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Sep 30, 2022

In order to establish lost profits damages, PNSI proffered the expert testimony of Meghan Cardell, a Certified Public Accountant (“CPA”). Appellees moved to exclude Ms. … Cardell testified that she had researched the accounting literature and determined that there was no established rule on this issue.

Cox v. State

194 Md. App. 629 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Sep 17, 2010

Id. at 825 , 126 S.Ct. 2266 (statements made “unwittingly” to a government informant are “clearly nontestimonial”). Rather, Mr. … West in central booking did not qualify as the fruit of an illegal arrest. It argues that appellant’s statements to Mr.

Surkovich v. Doub

258 Md. 263 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · May 14, 1970

It does *267 not clearly appear upon which ground the board and the court rested their respective opinions. … Klaus was qualified as an expert in real estate, being a realtor and real estate appraiser.