| ... |
... |
@@ -1,36
+1,0 @@ |
| 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 |