case involving claim in Maryland

1977It held, at 340-41: “The enforcement of such a right seems to fall in the category of ‘an equitable remedy, or an extraordinary legal remedy * * * recognized or regulated by statute’, rather than ‘a special form of remedy for a specific type of case’, within the meaning of Section 6 of Art. 31A.” 4 That the Tawes and Cambridge cases are in fact distinguishable was demonstrated in Schneider v. Pullen, 198 Md. 64 , 81 A. 2d 226 (1951), a case involving a challenge by a barber to an act providing for the certification and regulation of private trade schools.

1977It held, at 340-41: “The enforcement of such a right seems to fall in the category of ‘an equitable remedy, or an extraordinary legal remedy * * * recognized or regulated by statute’, rather than ‘a special form of remedy for a specific type of case’, within the meaning of Section 6 of Art. 31A.” 4 That the Tawes and Cambridge cases are in fact distinguishable was demonstrated in Schneider v. Pullen, 198 Md. 64 , 81 A. 2d 226 (1951), a case involving a challenge by a barber to an act providing for the certification and regulation of private trade schools.

1925Hopper v. Hopper, 79 Md. 402 ; Hubbard v. Jarrell, 23 Md. 66 ; Mahoney v. Mackubin, 52 Md. 366 ; Reeside v. Peter, 33 Md. 126 ; Glenn v. Clapp, 11 G. & J. 1 ; Loeber v. Ecker, 55 Md. 2 ; Johnson v. Dorsey, 7 G. 294; Hintze v. Stingel, 1 Md.

1902Hopper v. Hopper, 79 Md. 402 ; Hubbard v. Jarrell, 23 Md. 66 ; Mahoney v. Mackubin, 52 Md. 366 ; Reeside v. Peter, 33 Md. 126 ; Glenn v. Clapp, 11 G. & J. 1 ; Loeber v. Eckes, 55 Md. 2 ; Johnson v. Dorsey, 7 G. 294; Hintze v. Stingel, 1 Md.

1925Hopper v. Hopper, 79 Md. 402 ; Hubbard v. Jarrell, 23 Md. 66 ; Mahoney v. Mackubin, 52 Md. 366 ; Reeside v. Peter, 33 Md. 126 ; Glenn v. Clapp, 11 G. & J. 1 ; Loeber v. Ecker, 55 Md. 2 ; Johnson v. Dorsey, 7 G. 294; Hintze v. Stingel, 1 Md.

1902Hopper v. Hopper, 79 Md. 402 ; Hubbard v. Jarrell, 23 Md. 66 ; Mahoney v. Mackubin, 52 Md. 366 ; Reeside v. Peter, 33 Md. 126 ; Glenn v. Clapp, 11 G. & J. 1 ; Loeber v. Eckes, 55 Md. 2 ; Johnson v. Dorsey, 7 G. 294; Hintze v. Stingel, 1 Md.

2026In Vanderlinde, id. at 413-14 , 773 A.2d at 485 , we determined that generally where attorney misconduct involving intentional dishonesty is concerned, a sanction less than disbarment may be imposed only upon a showing by the attorney of compelling extenuating circumstances that are the “root cause” of the misconduct and that result in the “attorney’s utter inability to confirm [the attorney’s] conduct in accordance with the law and with the M[A]RPC.” - 58 - More recently, in Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Collins, 477 Md. 482, 529-30 , 270 A.3d 917, 945 (2022)—a case involving a violation of MA

2026In Vanderlinde, id. at 413-14 , 773 A.2d at 485 , we determined that generally where attorney misconduct involving intentional dishonesty is concerned, a sanction less than disbarment may be imposed only upon a showing by the attorney of compelling extenuating circumstances that are the “root cause” of the misconduct and that result in the “attorney’s utter inability to confirm [the attorney’s] conduct in accordance with the law and with the M[A]RPC.” - 58 - More recently, in Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Collins, 477 Md. 482, 529-30 , 270 A.3d 917, 945 (2022)—a case involving a violation of MA

2026In Vanderlinde, id. at 413-14 , 773 A.2d at 485 , we determined that generally where attorney misconduct involving intentional dishonesty is concerned, a sanction less than disbarment may be imposed only upon a showing by the attorney of compelling extenuating circumstances that are the “root cause” of the misconduct and that result in the “attorney’s utter inability to confirm [the attorney’s] conduct in accordance with the law and with the M[A]RPC.” - 58 - More recently, in Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Collins, 477 Md. 482, 529-30 , 270 A.3d 917, 945 (2022)—a case involving a violation of MA

2020Bennett v. State, 236 Md. 562, 568 , 188 A.2d 142 (1963) was a case involving an error in jury instructions.

2019In Boitnott v. Mayor and City Council of Balt. , 356 Md. 226 , 228, 234, 738 A.2d 881 , 882 (1999), a case involving a challenge to the validity of a Baltimore City ordinance amending an urban renewal plan, this Court observed that the plaintiffs had successfully alleged taxpayer standing.

2019In Boitnott v. Mayor and City Council of Balt. , 356 Md. 226 , 228, 234, 738 A.2d 881 , 882 (1999), a case involving a challenge to the validity of a Baltimore City ordinance amending an urban renewal plan, this Court observed that the plaintiffs had successfully alleged taxpayer standing.

2016In Edgewood, 212 Md.App. at 199 , 66 A.3d 1152 , a case involving a claim of retaliation under MCC § 27-19, this Court explained: “To establish a prima facie case of discrimination based on retaliation, a plaintiff must produce evidence that she [ (1) ] engaged in a protected activity; [ (2) ] her employer took an adverse action against her; and [ (3) ] her employer’s adverse action was causally connected to her protected activity.” If the plaintiff meets his or her burden of production in this regard, “the burden of production then shifts to the defendant to offer a non-retaliatory reason for

2016In Edgewood, 212 Md.App. at 199 , 66 A.3d 1152 , a case involving a claim of retaliation under MCC § 27-19, this Court explained: “To establish a prima facie case of discrimination based on retaliation, a plaintiff must produce evidence that she [ (1) ] engaged in a protected activity; [ (2) ] her employer took an adverse action against her; and [ (3) ] her employer’s adverse action was causally connected to her protected activity.” If the plaintiff meets his or her burden of production in this regard, “the burden of production then shifts to the defendant to offer a non-retaliatory reason for

2013A Reasonable and Objective Fear of Disease Faya v. Almaraz, 329 Md. 435 , 620 A.2d 327 (1993), 50 a case involving a claim for emotional distress damages based on a fear of contracting the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), determines the appropriate standard in this case.

2013A Reasonable and Objective Fear of Disease Faya v. Almaraz, 329 Md. 435 , 620 A.2d 327 (1993), 50 a case involving a claim for emotional distress damages based on a fear of contracting the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), determines the appropriate standard in this case.

2012In Zachair, Ltd. v. Driggs, 135 Md.App. 403, 427 , 762 A.2d 991 (2000), cert. denied, 363 Md. 206 , 768 A.2d 54 (2001), a case involving a claim of conversion of mining products, as to damages generally, we stated: As a general rule, the evidence to warrant damages must show that the plaintiff has sustained some injury and must establish sufficient data from which the court or jury can properly estimate the extent of the damages.

2012In Zachair, Ltd. v. Driggs, 135 Md.App. 403, 427 , 762 A.2d 991 (2000), cert. denied, 363 Md. 206 , 768 A.2d 54 (2001), a case involving a claim of conversion of mining products, as to damages generally, we stated: As a general rule, the evidence to warrant damages must show that the plaintiff has sustained some injury and must establish sufficient data from which the court or jury can properly estimate the extent of the damages.

2010Id. 14 *164 We revisited the Yorkdale rule most recently in Grasslands, a case involving a challenge to a subdivision application by an adjacent property owner.

2008In Hacker v. Shofer, 251 Md. 672, 676-77 , 248 A.2d 351 (1968), a case involving a claim for breach of implied warranty based on a defective bicycle that led to an accident, the Court held that, in order to prevail on a theory of breach of express or implied warranty, the plaintiff must prove that the product did not conform to the representations of the warranty at the time it left the seller’s control. 20 “[T]o allow the jury to decide whether there was a breach of warranty, there must be some evidence beyond mere speculation which would enable the jury to rationally decide it is more probab

2008In Hacker v. Shofer, 251 Md. 672, 676-77 , 248 A.2d 351 (1968), a case involving a claim for breach of implied warranty based on a defective bicycle that led to an accident, the Court held that, in order to prevail on a theory of breach of express or implied warranty, the plaintiff must prove that the product did not conform to the representations of the warranty at the time it left the seller’s control. 20 “[T]o allow the jury to decide whether there was a breach of warranty, there must be some evidence beyond mere speculation which would enable the jury to rationally decide it is more probab

2008In Hacker v. Shofer, 251 Md. 672, 676-77 , 248 A.2d 351 (1968), a case involving a claim for breach of implied warranty based on a defective bicycle that led to an accident, the Court held that, in order to prevail on a theory of breach of express or implied warranty, the plaintiff must prove that the product did not conform to the representations of the warranty at the time it left the seller’s control. 20 “[T]o allow the jury to decide whether there was a breach of warranty, there must be some evidence beyond mere speculation which would enable the jury to rationally decide it is more probab

2008In Hacker v. Shofer, 251 Md. 672, 676-77 , 248 A.2d 351 (1968), a case involving a claim for breach of implied warranty based on a defective bicycle that led to an accident, the Court held that, in order to prevail on a theory of breach of express or implied warranty, the plaintiff must prove that the product did not conform to the representations of the warranty at the time it left the seller’s control. 20 “[T]o allow the jury to decide whether there was a breach of warranty, there must be some evidence beyond mere speculation which would enable the jury to rationally decide it is more probab

2008In Lane v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co., 321 Md. 165 , 582 A.2d 501 (1990), which was a case involving a claim by an insured against its insurer for uninsured motorist benefits, the Court of Appeals rejected the insurer’s contention that limitations began to run as soon as the insured learned that the tortfeasers were uninsured.

2008In Lane v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co., 321 Md. 165 , 582 A.2d 501 (1990), which was a case involving a claim by an insured against its insurer for uninsured motorist benefits, the Court of Appeals rejected the insurer’s contention that limitations began to run as soon as the insured learned that the tortfeasers were uninsured.

2005In *269 Warner , the Eleventh Circuit specifically addressed the Sixth Circuit’s decision in Martin v. Rose, 744 F.2d 1245 (6th Cir.1984). 14 In Warner , the Eleventh Circuit considered a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel in a case involving defense counsel’s silence during the defendant’s trial.

2004Cl. 148, 164 (2001) (noting in a case involving a claim for attorney’s fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act that a COLA offsets the decrease in value of attorney’s fees due to inflation), rev’d, on other grounds, 288 F.3d 1371 (Fed.Cir.2002), cert. denied, 537 U.S. 1106 , 123 S.Ct. 871 , 154 L.Ed.2d 775 (2003); Director, Office of Workers' Comp.

2004Cl. 148, 164 (2001) (noting in a case involving a claim for attorney’s fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act that a COLA offsets the decrease in value of attorney’s fees due to inflation), rev’d, on other grounds, 288 F.3d 1371 (Fed.Cir.2002), cert. denied, 537 U.S. 1106 , 123 S.Ct. 871 , 154 L.Ed.2d 775 (2003); Director, Office of Workers' Comp.

2004Programs, United States Dep’t of Labor v. Bath Iron Works Corp., 885 F.2d 983, 985 (1st Cir.1989) (explaining that the Longshoremen’s and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act provides automatic COLAs “to protect beneficiaries from inflation”), cert. denied, 494 U.S. 1091 , 110 S.Ct. 1838 , 108 L.Ed.2d 967 (1990); Powhatan Corr.

2004Programs, United States Dep’t of Labor v. Bath Iron Works Corp., 885 F.2d 983, 985 (1st Cir.1989) (explaining that the Longshoremen’s and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act provides automatic COLAs “to protect beneficiaries from inflation”), cert. denied, 494 U.S. 1091 , 110 S.Ct. 1838 , 108 L.Ed.2d 967 (1990); Powhatan Corr.

2004Programs, United States Dep’t of Labor v. Bath Iron Works Corp., 885 F.2d 983, 985 (1st Cir.1989) (explaining that the Longshoremen’s and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act provides automatic COLAs “to protect beneficiaries from inflation”), cert. denied, 494 U.S. 1091 , 110 S.Ct. 1838 , 108 L.Ed.2d 967 (1990); Powhatan Corr.