Case law

Newell v. Runnels

407 Md. 578 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Mar 13, 2009

According to the court, he enjoyed Federal qualified immunity from the Count I claim. … Plaintiffs here claim that O’Leary, supra, is clearly established law.

Ledford v. Jenway Contracting

Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jul 1, 2025

Immunity should not be presumed; it must be clearly and affirmatively granted. A. … The qualifier “under this title” marks the boundaries of the statute’s reach – boundaries the majority now discards. We are not free to erase limits established by the General Assembly.

Maryland-National Capital Park v. Crawford

307 Md. 1 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jul 16, 1986

The court further found that the Commission’s affirmative action plan contained an exception suspending the “one for one” hiring rule when one among several “qualified” applicants for a position was “clearly” more qualified … Crawford as first choice and as clearly more qualified, and she recommended the second choice minority candidate.

Traore v. State

290 Md. 585 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jul 1, 1981

Traore enjoyed full immunity, he enjoys immunity from jurisdiction at this time only to the extent such act qualified as one arising in the course of performance of his official functions.” … The statutory language, rather than providing indicia of intended retrospectivity, clearly suggests an intent that the statute apply only to future acts.

James v. Prince George's County

288 Md. 315 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Oct 2, 1980

negligent acts of its agents since these individuals were "public officials” cloaked with a qualified personal immunity for their 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

BOARD OF ED. OF BALTIMORE CTY. v. Zimmer-Rubert

409 Md. 200 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jun 11, 2009

Zimmer-Rubert] is an experienced educator qualified to teach English, Spanish, German, and French. In March of 2004, [she] filed an application to teach foreign language in [the Baltimore County] high schools. … The Eleventh Amendment confirmed, rather than established, sovereign immunity as a constitutional principle; it follows that the scope of the States’ immunity from suit is demarcated not by the text of the Amendment alone

Donlon v. Montgomery Co. Public Schools

460 Md. 62 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jul 12, 2018

As this goes, county boards of education must be units of the State Executive branch because clearly they are not units of the Judicial or Legislative branches. … Entities “may qualify as a State agency for some purposes, while being classified as a local agency for other purposes.” Phillips, 413 Md. at 632, 994 A.2d at 427.

PRINCE GEORGE'S COUNTY v. Brent

414 Md. 334 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · May 17, 2010

At a bifurcated trial, the hospital’s liability was established. … In that connection, this Court said: “We have held that the purpose of § 5-507(b)(l) ‘was to codify existing public official immunity, and not to extend the scope of qualified immunity beyond its Maryland common law boundaries

Williams v. State

231 Md. 83 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Mar 7, 1963

That the package contained heroin was later established by the testimony of a United States chemist. … Moreover, the testimony as to the marks on the arms was merely cumulative and corroborative of the charge of possession, which was clearly established by the testimony of the tenant, the officers and the appellant’s own admission

Hanrahan v. Kelly

269 Md. 21 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · May 16, 1973

The Court distinguished the case very clearly from Pullman v. … Thus, in GambriU, we declined to view Boxsius as a weakening of the general rule declared in Pullman, but classed it instead as a clearly distinguishable exception rooted in the well-established rules of privilege.

Williams v. Morgan State Univ.

484 Md. 534 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Aug 14, 2023

Gregory Hilton, Clerk  The doctrine of sovereign immunity is an “ancient” concept.1 It is the long- established view that a sovereign, such as a state, is “infallible,”2 and, thus, immune from suit “absent the State … By its plain terms, SG § 12-104(b) provides that the scope of the State’s waiver of sovereign immunity is established by the interplay between subsection (a) and CJP § 5-522(a).

Larsen v. Chinwuba

377 Md. 92 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Sep 10, 2003

The intermediate appellate court stated “that Chinwuba adequately alleged specific facts that raised a factual dispute about whether Larsen made tortious statements to the press ... during the confidentiality period ... established … While we have assumed, solely for purposes of this case, that the disclosures violated § 2-209(g) of the Insurance Article, they were clearly not “ ‘seriously criminal’ ” acts. Great A.P. v.

Lathroum v. Potomac Electric Power Co.

309 Md. 445 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · May 7, 1987

Clearly, PEPCO’s alleged contractual relationship with the public fails to meet this definition. … Furthermore, we do not intimate that all of the other Honaker conditions needed to establish a “statutory employer” relationship were met here.

Maryland Board of Physicians v. Geier

451 Md. 526 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jan 23, 2017

In Dawkins this Court made clear that, as “a general rule, interlocutory [ ] orders rejecting defenses of common law sovereign immunity, governmental immunity, public official immunity, statutory immunity, or any other type … of immunity are not appealable under the [ ] collateral order doctrine.”

Dawkins v. Baltimore City Police Department

376 Md. 53 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jun 19, 2003

This would be flatly inconsistent with the long-established and sound public policy against piecemeal appeals.” Finally, the Bunting opinion noted that the “immunity from ... trial” language in State v. … We do not regard the denial of a motion for summary judgment asserting the qualified immunity of a deputy sheriff charged with maliciously committing common law torts as an ‘extraordinary situation.’

McDermott v. Hughley

317 Md. 12 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Aug 10, 1989

Kolodner, 233 Md. 512, 522 , 197 A.2d 245 (1964), we explained the difference: [a]n absolute privilege is distinguished from a qualified privilege in that the former provides immunity regardless of the purpose or motive of … We have recognized numerous instances where a qualified privilege is appropriate. For example, communications arising out of the employer-employee relationship clearly enjoy a qualified privilege.

O'Brien & Gere Engineers, Inc. v. City of Salisbury

447 Md. 394 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Apr 26, 2016

Nature and History of Litigation Privilege We begin by examining the established contours of the litigation privilege, which accords the putative tortfeasor absolute immunity from civil liability. … The litigation privilege has been described as “more of an immunity for litigators, by contrast to a qualified privilege.” Paul T.

Maryland State Bar Ass'n v. Sugarman

273 Md. 306 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Dec 9, 1974

fraudulent and deceitful purpose” and “[t]he rendering and delivering of *309 financial statements for professional services to the client Kline, which services were not rendered, [was] particularly distressing and was clearly … In the course of that trial it was established that Rouss had entered into an arrangement with a potential witness by which for a money consideration that person would keep without the state.

Honaker v. W. C. & A. N. Miller Development Co.

278 Md. 453 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Nov 4, 1976

The relation established by the statute was described in terms of two employers of the same employee: “One was [the employee’s] immediate employer, the subcontractor, whose relation was founded in contract; and the second … “If an employer is within the [Workmen’s Compensation] act to bear its liabilities, he must remain to be accorded its immunities, in the absence of clearly expressed legislative intention to the contrary.” State v.

Goodwich v. Sinai Hospital of Baltimore, Inc.

343 Md. 185 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Aug 6, 1996

As he sees it, a motion for summary judgment predicated on the immunity established by *200 the HCQIA should be reviewed in accordance with Maryland summary judgment procedure. Simply put, Dr. … Having made the requisite showing, Sinai claims that it qualifies for the presumptive immunity afforded by the HCQIA. Therefore, it disputes Dr.