was-the-trial-court's-denial-of-the-petitioner's-motion-for-summary-judgment-legally-correct

QUESTIONS PRESENTED (1) Was the Trial Court’s denial of the Petitioner’s Motion for Summary Judgment and Request for Hearing without granting the Petitioner a Hearing he , | requested, legally correct when Maryland Rule 2-311 (f) requires the Trial Court . | to hold a Hearing before rendering a decision disposing of a claim or a defense? (2) _ Petitioner’s evidence raised substantial issues of fact as to whether Petitioner was Fired/ Retired because of a Subjective belief, and if so, whether his Discharge/ Retirement eventuated from the Racial Disadvantage permitting a White Woman in | his Patrol Unit where a Hand Gun was Found while assisting this Person from and | to Police Units. , See, (Battle v. Mulholland, C. A. Miss. 19971, 489 F.2d 321.) (3) Whether State Respondents knew or reasonably should have known that the | Action they took within their shear of Official responsibility when they evicted , Petitioner from Public Market would violate Constitutional Rights of Petitioner and | whether Respondents took such Action with Malicious Intention to cause a Deprivation of Constitutional Rights or Other Injury to Petitioner are Questions of Fact. See, (Wilder v. Irvin, D.C. GA. 1976, 423 F. Supp. 639.) : TABLE OF CONTENT OPINIONS BELOW. .:ces