Case law

Williams v. Mayor of Baltimore

359 Md. 101 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jun 8, 2000

We hold that in enacting the immunity provision of [1979 Maryland Laws, Chapter] 307, it clearly was not the legislative intent to diminish or to curtail in any way the qualified immunity otherwise enjoyed by a law enforcement … Maryland case law has affirmatively established that, while performing their duties, law enforcement officers are public officials and, thus, fall within the scope of qualified immunity as to their discretionary acts.

Davis v. State

294 Md. 370 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Oct 5, 1982

),” nor qualified for the exemption from the immunization requirement. … Maryland’s compulsory immunization program clearly furthers the important governmental objective of eliminating and preventing certain communicable diseases.

Arrow Cab v. Himelstein

348 Md. 558 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Feb 9, 1998

Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services, “The applicability of sovereign *570 immunity in a particular case, therefore, turns on: (1) whether the entity asserting immunity qualifies for its protection; and, … The flaw in Petitioners’ argument is that they are not entitled to the defense of sovereign immunity and they do not qualify for its protection.

Fox v. Wills

390 Md. 620 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jan 18, 2006

needed to overcome qualified immunity. … The Circuit Court granted the motion to dismiss, stating “that there is clearly privilege here or immunity, whether it is qualified or quasi-judicial.” 4 The plaintiff appealed, and the Court of Special Appeals affirmed,

Gersh v. Ambrose

291 Md. 188 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Sep 9, 1981

This is the same reason the privilege granted is absolute, rather than qualified, i.e., defeasible by malice, for all protected participants in the judicial proceeding. See, e.g., Butz v. … The cumulative effect of the safeguards which attended the proceedings was such that the public interest sought to be advanced by providing the immunity clearly outweighed the harm of subjecting the individual to possible

Jackson v. Millstone

369 Md. 575 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jun 21, 2002

Taurus Jackson currently qualifies for medical assistance in Maryland as either categorically or medically needy, and he “may select any ... category for which technical eligibility may be established.” … Jessica Nettles was 14 years old when she was diagnosed with liver failure, chronic hepatitis, and an immune deficiency disease. She was qualified for medicaid benefits.

Clea v. Mayor of Baltimore

312 Md. 662 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jun 9, 1988

In Maryland, a limited category of governmental personnel, including police officers, are entitled under certain circumstances to qualified immunity from tort liability for their negligent conduct. … Once it is established that the individual is a public official and the tort was committed while performing a duty which involves the exercise of discretion, a qualified immunity attaches; namely, in the absence of malice

Gill v. Ripley

352 Md. 754 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Feb 16, 1999

It observed as well that, ordinarily, qualified immunity is sufficient to protect government officials in the exercise of their duties and that officials seeking absolute immunity had the burden of showing that absolute immunity … Only qualified immunity applied. The prosecutors fared no better with respect to their press conference statements.

De La Puente v. CTY COMM'SR OF FREDERICK COUNTY

386 Md. 505 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · May 5, 2005

In Muthukumarana , we outlined the doctrine of common law public official immunity: At common law, a government actor will enjoy qualified immunity from liability for his or her non-malicious acts where: (1) he is a public … Once it is established that the individual is a public official and the tort was committed while performing a duty which involves the exercise of discretion, a qualified immunity attaches; namely, in the absence of malice

Imperial v. Drapeau

351 Md. 24 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Aug 27, 1998

privilege rather than perhaps given qualified immunity by a privilege such as fair comment on matters of public concern or a similar qualified privilege. … If Imperial did enjoy qualified immunity for his letters, Drapeau would finally have an opportunity for a judicial proceeding to clear his name, since the record establishes that there was sufficient evidence for a jury to

Ritchie v. Donnelly

324 Md. 344 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Oct 29, 1991

immunity.. … The police officer in Clea was clearly acting within the scope of his employment.

Imperial v. Drapeau

351 Md. 38 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Aug 27, 1998

privilege rather than perhaps given qualified immunity by a privilege such as fair comment on matters of public concern or a similar qualified privilege. … If Imperial did enjoy qualified immunity for his letters, Drapeau would finally have an opportunity for a judicial proceeding to clear his name, since the record establishes that there was sufficient evidence for a jury to

Andrews & Lawrence v. Mills

467 Md. 126 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jan 28, 2020

must establish an independent basis to receive the benefit of immunity. … entitled to receive immunity; the principal must establish an independent basis to receive the benefit of an immunity shield.”

Espina v. Jackson

442 Md. 311 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Mar 30, 2015

In addition, the immunity from suit applied whether or not the tenant accepted the “qualified offer.” Dackman, 422 Md. at 366-67, 30 A.3d at 859. … The first, as in that case, involved the scenario where no qualified offer was made, or was required to be made, or where a qualified offer was rejected by the plaintiff, but the landlord nonetheless would be immune from

Bennett v. Harford County

485 Md. 461 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Aug 30, 2023

To be qualified to serve as a Council member, a candidate must “have been a resident and a qualified voter of the County for at least two years immediately preceding election or appointment,” and (other than the Council … Before his removal can be compelled by mandamus his constitutional or statutory disqualification should be clearly apparent.

Robinson v. Board of County Commissioners

262 Md. 342 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jun 2, 1971

Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, 151 Md. 11 (1926), and that when they are within the scope of their law enforcement function they are clearly acting in a discretionary capacity. Eliason, supra. … Watkins, supra, we said: *348 “It has been felt that a qualified privilege is sufficient, so that immunity is conditioned upon the absence of malice (unlike the situation where there is absolute privilege) and also upon action

Brewer v. Mele

267 Md. 437 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Dec 20, 1972

Dep *445 uty Sheriff Mele would qualify for governmental immunity here, barring only the question of his possible malice. As Judge McWilliams said for this Court in Robinson v. … If it be some affirmative showing of ill will, improper motivation, or evil purpose, 5 the undisputed facts might well reveal its total absence prior to trial and permit the assertion of the qualified immunity.

Schreyer v. Chaplain

416 Md. 94 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Oct 6, 2010

Accordingly, it was not convinced that the petitioner qualified for immunity pursuant to § 5-639. … To establish that link, the petitioner cites Ashton v.

Rucker v. Harford County

316 Md. 275 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jun 6, 1989

In his remarks, Attorney General Sachs first dealt with public official immunity as follows (emphasis added): “[U]nder State law, it is only ‘public officials,’ not ‘public employes,’ who enjoy a qualified immunity as the … S.B. 585 would also abolish the arbitrary distinction between State ‘officials’ (who now have qualified immunity) and State ‘employees’ (who don’t).

Rovin v. State

488 Md. 144 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Aug 15, 2024

Under the State Constitution, governmental officials do not have qualified immunity when a violation is established. … legal rules that were clearly established at the time it was taken.”