Case law

Mayor of Baltimore v. Baltimore & Ohio Rail-road

6 Gill 288 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jun 15, 1848

The effort made to restrict the immunity now under consideration to State taxes only, cannot be sustained. … There are no words used by the legislature qualifying or limiting the extent of the immunity conferred; it is therefore unlike the case of Mayor and City Council of Baltimore vs.

Pope v. Williams

66 L.R.A. 398 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Dec 3, 1903

. *66 On 29th September, 1903, he applied for registration to the Board of Registration of the election district in Montgomery County in which he resided to be registered as a qualified voter, but the board refused to comply … The scope of the series of constitutional provisions of which the 14th Amendment is one, was clearly stated in the case of Strauder v. West Virginia, 100 U. S. 303—312.

Para v. Richards Group of Washington Ltd. Partnership

339 Md. 241 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jul 20, 1995

Upon remand, the owner/developer established that he had a custom building contract for the house in question. … immune from tort suit.

Beall v. Holloway-Johnson

446 Md. 48 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jan 21, 2016

In a case involving a question of qualified immunity for State Police troopers, the Court of Special Appeals, relying on our decision in Okwa, stated that “a police officer acting without malice may be liable for using … “Baltimore City police officers enjoy an indirect statutory qualified immunity under LGTCA [but] do not possess a direct immunity from liability for their tortious conduct under LGTCA.

Brush-Moore Newspapers, Inc. v. Pollitt

220 Md. 132 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · May 20, 1959

It is a general rule that the official participants in judicial and legislative proceedings enjoy an immunity from actions for defamation, described as an absolute privilege, on grounds of public policy. … But it has been stated that the rule should not be extended “beyond the strict line established by a concurrence of decisions.” Maurice v. Warden, 54 Md. 233, 254 .

State v. Sharafeldin

382 Md. 129 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jul 27, 2004

” and picking, instead, “candidates who were less qualified than the Plaintiff.” … There was clearly no intent on the part of the Legislature to waive the State’s Eleventh Amendment immunity in actions in Federal court or to waive its inherent sovereign immunity in actions filed in the courts of some other

State of Md. Comptroller v. Badlia Bros.

Court of Appeals of Maryland · Mar 28, 2025

The court consolidated the cases, ruled that the State enjoyed qualified immunity, and dismissed the cases. The Circuit Court for Baltimore City reversed. … In assessing whether sovereign immunity applies, the Court looks at: “(1) whether the entity asserting immunity qualifies for the protection; and, if so, (2) whether the legislature has waived immunity either directly

E. Eyring & Sons Co. v. Mayor of Baltimore

253 Md. 380 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · May 2, 1969

Clearly, the acts of the City carried out by the Bureau of Building Inspection in the issuance of permits, supervision, and inspection of construction are sanctioned by legislative authority. … Under these circumstances, we are unable to find that the City failed to meet its burden of establishing its defense of governmental immunity. See Madison v. Reichelt, 158 F. Supp. 401 (D.

Blackwell v. Wyeth

408 Md. 575 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · May 7, 2009

Deth was “clearly qualified to testify as an expert witness in the areas of physiology and neurophar *626 macology.” Judge Berger, however, excluded Dr. … In the present case, clearly the level of complexity regarding the establishment of a causal relationship between the administration of a vaccine containing thimerosal and the onset of autism is complex; to the extent that

Prince George's County v. Longtin

419 Md. 450 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Apr 25, 2011

According to the Defendants, Longtin failed to qualify under the “exclusive” list of factors established in Heron, Wilbon and White . … The Defendants also argue that a pattern or practice claim would “deprive the courts of its role to determine the legal question of the threshold issues [of qualified immunity.]”

Higginbotham v. Public Service Commission

412 Md. 112 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Dec 30, 2009

conscious and deliberate wrongs and also acted with an evil motive, as well as ill will and spite.... ” *146 According to the plaintiff, “Schisler was aware of and knew that the discharges in question ... were illegal under clearly-established … This Court’s opinions regularly qualify the principle. See Lovelace v.

Fraternal Order of Police v. Montgomery County

446 Md. 490 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Feb 23, 2016

rights of which a reasonable person would have known,” they enjoyed qualified immunity from monetary damages. … The trial judge denied such relief based on qualified immunity.

Stevenson v. Baltimore Baseball Club, Inc.

250 Md. 482 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jul 3, 1968

Communications arising out of the employer-employee relationship clearly enjoy a qualified privilege, and could be included in the line of cases which extend the privilege to groups engaged in a common purpose, Prosser, Torts … See also, Evans, Legal Immunity for Defamation, 24 Minn. L. Rev. 607 (1940).

ARA Health Services, Inc. v. Department of Public Safety & Correctional Services

344 Md. 85 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Nov 26, 1996

The applicability of sovereign immunity in a particular case, therefore, turns on: (1) whether the entity asserting immunity qualifies for its protection; and, if so, (2) whether the legislature has waived immunity, either … The terms of the contract clearly state that the parties to the contract were CMS and the State of Maryland, “acting through” the DOC.

Bennett v. Harford County

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.

Bd. of Education v. Sturm

Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jun 23, 2026

Varghese, 493 Md. 1, 11-16 (2025), the Court was clearly referring to sovereign immunity. … Our caselaw establishes that an effective waiver of sovereign 20 immunity requires two things.

Baltimore County v. RTKL Associates Inc.

380 Md. 670 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Apr 9, 2004

The Councü noted that, although sovereign immunity was generally avaüable, legislative exceptions had been made to that doctrine and a number of State and local agencies had obtained comprehensive insurance or had established … Unit case established that it was “the doctrine of sovereign immunity” that precluded the assertion of limitations against the State in a contract action. Central Coll. Unit, supra, 277 Md. at 628 , 356 A.2d at 556-57 .

Brady v. Ralph Parsons Co.

308 Md. 486 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Feb 2, 1987

Parsons had a duty to take reasonable precautionary steps to protect the employees on the subway, such as Donald Brady, from ... clearly foreseeable dangers. … In administering this test, we have established five criteria to consult for guidance.

Duncan v. Koustenis

260 Md. 98 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Dec 11, 1970

In any event, it seems apparent that once the immunity of the School Board is established, the depletion of the public treasury rationale would have no relevance to the question of whether its immunity extends to public school … In applying the above tests, it seems clear that a public school teacher would not qualify as a public official.

Rios v. Montgomery County

386 Md. 104 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Apr 7, 2005

Moreover, the court stated that because the legislature has waived sovereign immunity in limited contexts, it also has the power to establish the conditions for such a waiver to be effective and to exempt minors from compliance … Study Group, 438 U.S. 59 , 88 n. 32, 98 S.Ct. 2620 , 2638 n. 32, 57 L.Ed.2d 595 , 620 n. 32 (1978) (“[o]ur cases have clearly established that ‘[a] person has no property, no vested interest, in any rule of the common law