Case law

Hagans

District Court, D. Maryland · Mar 17, 2026

But as discussed above, the undisputed evidence establishes the criteria that the hiring committee used, ECF No. 52-17 ¶ 11, that they did not believe Plaintiff was the most qualified candidate, ECF No. 52-18, why Mr. … City of Wilmington, 545 F.3d 260, 265 (4th Cir. 2008) (“The similarity between comparators and the seriousness of their respective offenses must be clearly established in order to be meaningful.”).

York v. State

56 Md. App. 222 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Nov 4, 1983

Moreover, the two police witnesses who characterized the weapon as “inoperable” both in effect qualified their opinions in that regard. … It is the § 36F definition that applies to the handgun offense established by § 36B(d), and not the broader definition contained in Art. 27, § 441(c). Tisdale v. State, 30 Md.App. 334, 343 , 353 A.2d 653 (1976). 2 .

Contino v. Baltimore & Annapolis R. Co.

86 F. Supp. 634 · District Court, D. Maryland · Jun 18, 1949

This Act is still in effect, but the words “hereafter constructed” which originally qualified the railroads made subject to it, were eliminated in 1931. See Article 89B, See. 26, 1939 Annotated Code of Maryland. … 14 , 149 A. at page 569 : “From the beginning and throughout the entire evolution of the present system of state highways construction, maintenance, and control, the constant and unbroken policy of the state has been to establish

Rodriguez v. Clarke

400 Md. 39 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · May 31, 2007

an answer or deny only part of the matter ..., the party shall specify so much of it as is true and deny or qualify the remainder.” … Therefore, we upheld the evidence preclusion sanctions applied by the hearing judge as “clearly .... proportionate to the discovery abuse.” Id. at 661 , 870 A.2d at 243 .

State v. Luckett

188 Md. App. 399 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Oct 5, 2009

Like a standing epithet in classical literature, every mention of the right to counsel was appended by the qualifying notion of “when we’re discussing this case specifically.” … The two were clearly talking across each other, and there was no meeting of the minds. The appellee asked about but was never told of “the consequences of abandoning” his right to counsel.

Armstrong v. Mayor of Baltimore

409 Md. 648 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jul 23, 2009

To conclude otherwise that the non-governmental party qualifies as a “prevailing” party only if that party obtains an injunction, a declaration of invalidity of the legislative act, or achieves other remedies following establishment … (d) Preexisting lot of record. (1) This subsection does not apply in an Industrial District. (2) On a lot that was established before April 20, 1971, a single-family dwelling may be established regardless of the minimum lot

Testerman v. H & R BLOCK, INC.

22 Md. App. 320 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Aug 8, 1974

That punitive damages are allowed in such cases and that such an instruction is proper is clearly established. … Weisberg, with a level of competence known to Block, to be held out to the public as qualified tax consultants.

Burroughs v. Lt. Reed

District Court, D. Maryland · Aug 3, 2021

To establish an Eighth Amendment violation, an inmate must establish both that the prison official subjectively “acted with a sufficiently culpable state of mind” and that the injury or deprivation inflicted was objectively … Iko, 535 F.3d at 238 (4th Cir. 2008) (citations omitted) (holding correctional officer not entitled to qualified immunity where additional chemical agent was deployed into inmate’s cell after inmate attempted

State v. Davis

415 Md. 22 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jun 30, 2010

The CSA articulated the requirement for a current and established intent to discharge counsel in Henry v. State, 184 Md.App. 146 , 964 A.2d 678 (2009), cert. granted on other grounds, 408 Md. 487 , 970 A.2d 892 (2009). … We rephrased the question presented because the facts clearly indicate that, at the very least, Davis made an express present request for new counsel to his current attorney.

Katz, Abosch, etc., P.A. v. Parkway Neuroscience

Court of Appeals of Maryland · Aug 30, 2023

Cardell qualified as an expert or not. And the court explicitly stated that it was not deciding one way or the other whether Ms. Cardell was, in fact, qualified to render an expert opinion at trial. … Questions of fact are reviewed under the clearly erroneous standard.

Sangster v. State

70 Md. App. 456 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Mar 5, 1987

Cerino, 19 Md.App. 619, 637 , 313 A.2d 505 (1974), we held that an opinion expressed in a hospital record by a qualified person is admissible into evidence as an exception to the hearsay rule, and “it is incumbent upon the … It clearly would not establish an assault with intent to murder. It clearly would establish an assault with intent to maim, disfigure or disable. Glenn, 68 Md.App. at 394 n. 8, 511 A.2d 1110 .

Broadway Services v. Comptroller

478 Md. 200 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Apr 1, 2022

The Court of Special Appeals below noted that the Tax Court “should have examined the contracts to determine the nature of the relationship they established[,]” but ultimately concluded that the HSAs appear to establish … In Green, to ascertain the level of control necessary to establish a principal-agent relationship, we used the degree of control required to establish an employer-employee relationship as guidance. 355 Md. at 508.

Crosten v. Kamauf

932 F. Supp. 676 · District Court, D. Maryland · Mar 25, 1996

The supervisory employee need not have the ultimate authority to hire or fire to qualify as an employer, as long as he or she has significant input into such personnel decisions. … Plaintiff cannot rely on the alleged sexual harassment or discrimination as the violation of a clearly mandated public policy to support her wrongful discharge claim.

Pitt v. State

152 Md. App. 442 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Sep 23, 2003

The writing at issue is clearly inadmissible hearsay. … [because] even without [Exhibit Five], there was no question but that the value of the property far exceeded the $500 required to establish felony theft.”

Federal Savings & Loan Insurance v. Williams

622 F. Supp. 132 · District Court, D. Maryland · Oct 30, 1985

The FSLIC’s subsidization and supervision of the merger qualifies the FSLIC as a party to the acquisition for the purpose of resolving the issue of the applicability of the Bangor Punta holding in this case. … Podell, 546 F.2d 495 (2d Cir.1976), the Court is unaware of any case which supports the proposition that fraud may not be inferred or *136 that it may not be established clearly and convincingly by circumstantial evidence

Sheppard v. Pepper

District Court, D. Maryland · Dec 11, 2019

They additionally assert Eleventh Amendment and qualified immunity as affirmative defenses and claim Sheppard has not sufficiently demonstrated supervisory liability. … BENNETT UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Because no constitutional violation is shown, this Court will not address Defendants’ qualified immunity defense.

Bank of America, N.A. v. Jill P. Mitchell Living Trust

822 F. Supp. 2d 505 · District Court, D. Maryland · Nov 3, 2011

The term “related” qualifies the meaning of “attorney’s fees.” … Given this linguistic consanguinity, it seems odd to read the qualifier “related” so as to preclude it from qualifying another category of costs (related attorney’s fees and court costs) when “relating to” qualifies a category

Estate of Brown v. Ward

Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Apr 19, 2024

Through its appointed Substitute Trustees, may a stranger to a non- assigned Maryland judgment subsequently utilize a purported contractual right for a summary action which was not clearly preserved in the loan … These statutes “provide[] consumer protection to borrowers[,]” “establish[] parameters and requirements with which credit grantors must comply[,]” and “establish[] various remedies to a borrower if the credit grantor fails

Wiggins v. State

352 Md. 580 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Feb 10, 1999

Korell changed her opinion once prior to the trial, and the defense had ample time to, and did, secure its own qualified expert testimony on this matter. … That finding is not clearly erroneous.

Wheeler v. State

Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jun 25, 2018

by the Maryland Department of Health, the Department of State Police, the Baltimore City Police Department, or any county police department employing analysts of controlled dangerous substances, as qualified … The three closely related sections, read in conjunction with each other, clearly facilitate admissibility (subject to the two exceptions) rather than create some new ground for exclusion.