James Champ, a Baltimore County police officer since 1972, sued the county and officials after being placed on disability retirement in 1993 due to the permanent loss of use of his left arm from a 1976 off-duty injury. He had worked light-duty assignments for over 15 years but alleged violations of the ADA, Rehabilitation Act, and §1983 based on disability discrimination. The court granted summary judgment to defendants, holding that Champ was not a qualified individual with a disability because he could not perform essential police officer functions like forcible arrest, with or without reasonable accommodation. Medical evidence supported this conclusion, and the court applied identical standards to the ADA and Rehabilitation Act claims while rejecting arguments that light-duty roles altered the essential functions analysis.
The case involved the federal Office of Inspector General for the Agency for International Development seeking court enforcement of a subpoena against First National Bank of Maryland for corporate account records as part of an official investigation under the Inspector General Act. The bank refused, citing Maryland’s Confidential Financial Record Act, which requires subpoenas to include certifications of customer notice or a court waiver. The court granted the petition for enforcement, holding that the federal subpoena was valid under the Right to Financial Privacy Act (which does not require notice for corporate customers) and that the state statute’s additional requirements were preempted by the Supremacy Clause because they obstructed the federal IG Act’s objectives of facilitating prompt investigations into federal fund expenditures. The decision rested on the principle that valid federal legislation nullifies conflicting state laws where compliance with both is impossible or the state rule hinders congressional purposes.
Anheuser-Busch and Penn Advertising sued the Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, challenging a city ordinance that banned most outdoor billboard advertisements for alcoholic beverages as a violation of the First Amendment and the Maryland Declaration of Rights. The ordinance was enacted under state authority to promote the welfare and temperance of minors after public hearings on underage drinking. The court treated the City's motion to dismiss as one for summary judgment and applied the Central Hudson test for restrictions on commercial speech. It concluded that the advertising at issue was lawful and not misleading, that the City's interest was substantial, and that the ordinance directly advanced that interest without being more extensive than necessary. The court therefore granted summary judgment to the City and upheld the ordinance.
The case involved a declaratory judgment action filed by United States Fidelity and Guaranty Company against A & S Manufacturing Company and other insurers to determine the rights and obligations under liability insurance policies regarding environmental contamination claims brought by the EPA under CERCLA. A & S moved to realign the parties, arguing that the insurers should all be aligned against A & S on the primary issue of whether they had a duty to defend or indemnify. The court granted the motion to realign, which destroyed diversity jurisdiction because A & S and one insurer were both citizens of New Jersey, and dismissed the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The core reasoning was that the principal purpose of the suit was the insurers' duty to the insured, making disputes among insurers secondary, following the standard from Indianapolis v. Chase National Bank.
The case involved parents of children with learning disabilities and advocacy organizations suing the Baltimore County Board of Education under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) to prevent the transfer of approximately 850 students from specialized special education settings to regular classrooms for the 1993-1994 school year. The plaintiffs sought a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction to maintain the prior placements, arguing violations of the law's requirements for individualized education and least restrictive environments. The court dismissed the claims, holding that the plaintiffs failed to exhaust the administrative remedies provided under the IDEA, such as due process hearings for individual students, and that exceptions for futility or systemic issues did not apply because the disputes could be resolved through the statutory administrative process.
The case was a breach of contract action brought in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland by Leather Masters (PVT), Ltd., a Pakistani corporation, against Giampier Ltd., a Colorado corporation that purchased leather goods from the plaintiff. The defendant moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2) for lack of personal jurisdiction, asserting that it had no office, agents, or regular business in Maryland and that all goods were shipped to and paid from its Denver office. The court granted the motion, concluding that the defendant’s communications with the plaintiff’s Maryland agent, possible downstream sales of goods in Maryland stores by third parties, and other limited contacts were insufficient to establish jurisdiction under the Maryland long-arm statute or to satisfy due process minimum contacts requirements.
