| ... |
... |
@@ -1,0
+1,36 @@ |
|
1 |
+====Interpretation: The aff must defend limiting qualified immunity for police officers. ==== |
|
2 |
+ |
|
3 |
+ |
|
4 |
+====Limit has a variety of definitions, but they all mean "bound" not eliminate. ==== |
|
5 |
+**Court of Appeals of Maryland 02** |
|
6 |
+(SY-LENE OF WASHINGTON, INC. v. STARWOOD URBAN RETAIL II, LLC No. 132, September Term, 2002 COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND 376 Md. 157; 829 A.2d 540; 2003 Md. LEXIS 455 July 29, 2003, Filed) |
|
7 |
+Definitions of the word "limit" include the following: (1) to |
|
8 |
+AND |
|
9 |
+limit conflicts with the idea that a limit defines an area or range. |
|
10 |
+ |
|
11 |
+ |
|
12 |
+====B. Violation- the affirmative does not mandate a quantitative or qualitative restriction on qualified immunity, they eliminate it entirely ==== |
|
13 |
+ |
|
14 |
+ |
|
15 |
+====1. Legal consensus- limit does not mean eliminate. ==== |
|
16 |
+**Court of Special Appeals of Maryland 14** |
|
17 |
+(SIERRA CLUB, ET AL. v. DOMINION COVE POINT LNG, L.P. No. 2429, September Term, 2012 COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND 216 Md. App. 322; 86 A.3d 82; 2014 Md. App. LEXIS 18; 44 ELR 20037 February 28, 2014, Filed) |
|
18 |
+Before the Court of Appeals, the plaintiff argued that the lease was ambiguous and |
|
19 |
+AND |
|
20 |
+determine the intended amount of spaces at the time of contracting. Id. |
|
21 |
+ |
|
22 |
+ |
|
23 |
+====2. This case law represents broad precedent. ==== |
|
24 |
+**Court of Appeals of Arizona 08** |
|
25 |
+(COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE, DEPARTMENT E 2008 Ariz. App. Unpub. LEXIS 1013 May 1, 2008, Amended by Order Filed ) |
|
26 |
+P34 We find support for our conclusion in Sy-Lene and Schuster. In |
|
27 |
+AND |
|
28 |
+limit of spaces would be acceptable. Id. at 547-48. |
|
29 |
+ |
|
30 |
+ |
|
31 |
+Standards |
|
32 |
+Ground |
|
33 |
+Jurisdiction |
|
34 |
+Legal Precision |
|
35 |
+ |
|
36 |
+Voters |