Case law

Parker v. State

337 Md. 271 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Feb 7, 1995

In particular, the Court has distinguished between the qualified and narrower immunity for discretionary acts generally accorded to public officials, and absolute judicial immunity, which, unlike qualified immunity, applies … Mele, 267 Md. 437, 444 , 298 A.2d 156, 161 (1972) (contrasting the absolute immunity of judges with the qualified immunity of law enforcement officers); Eliason v.

Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission v. Bowen

410 Md. 287 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Aug 26, 2009

Although Dawkins did not expressly delineate legislative immunity, such immunity claims clearly fall within the language in Dawkins of “any other type of immunity.” … When a qualified immunity claim is not defeated by malice or some other factor which might defeat qualified immunity, the two types of immunity claims are the same and are reviewable on appeal from an adverse final judgment

Condon v. State

332 Md. 481 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Nov 1, 1993

established *493 by the State Treasurer. … We held that § 17-107(b) established a more limited waiver of the State’s immunity, without the precondi *496 tion of timely notice before suit was filed. Id. 327 Md. at 41 , 607 A.2d 552 .

Cunningham ex rel Gaines v. Baltimore Cnty.

487 Md. 282 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jun 25, 2024

Because the law was not clearly established at the time, qualified immunity is proper. … Alternatively, the Defendants argued that Corporal Ruby was entitled to qualified immunity because he did not violate clearly established law.

Dehn Motor Sales, LLC v. Schultz

439 Md. 460 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jul 22, 2014

But there’s enough that’s involved that it certainly raised it to qualified immunity, I mean to show that it was not clearly established. … established law, and therefore, were entitled to qualified immunity.

Cunningham ex rel Gaines v. Baltimore Cnty.

Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jun 25, 2024

Because the law was not clearly established at the time, qualified immunity is proper. … Alternatively, the Defendants argued that Corporal Ruby was entitled to qualified immunity because he did not violate clearly established law.

Cunningham ex rel Gaines v. Baltimore Cnty.

Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jun 25, 2024

Because the law was not clearly established at the time, qualified immunity is proper. … Alternatively, the Defendants argued that Corporal Ruby was entitled to qualified immunity because he did not violate clearly established law.

Shoemaker v. Smith

353 Md. 143 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Mar 10, 1999

'abstract issu[e] of law’ relating to qualified immunity ... … —typically, the issue whether the federal right allegedly infringed was 'clearly established. ..

D'AOUST v. Diamond

424 Md. 549 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jan 31, 2012

qualified immunity. … The test clearly conflates the doctrines of absolute judicial immunity and qualified public official immunity.

Okwa v. Harper

360 Md. 161 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jul 28, 2000

... assessed in light of the legal rules that were ‘clearly established’ at the time it was taken. … In determining whether Appellees were entitled to qualified immunity from Appellants’ § 1983 claim we first look to the relevant “legal rules that were ‘clearly established’ at the time” which governed Appellees actions during

Transcare Maryland, Inc. v. Murray

431 Md. 225 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Apr 22, 2013

The County noted that, while the firefighter was clearly immune under the Good Samaritan Act, “[t]he volunteer fire department, however, is a private nonprofit corporation which does not appear to have the statutory immunity … Act, regardless of whether the company’s employee may qualify for immunity under the statute.

State v. Jett

316 Md. 248 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · May 31, 1989

Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511 , 105 S.Ct. 2806, 2815-17 , 86 L.Ed.2d 411 (1985) (Attorney General qualified immunity); Nixon v. … Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511 , 105 S.Ct. 2806 , 86 L.Ed.2d 411 (1985) (denial of a claim of qualified immunity, to the extent it turns on an issue of law); Nixon v.

Jackson v. Dackman Co.

422 Md. 357 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Oct 24, 2011

Thus, the application of traditional or well-established immunities from suit has been held not to violate Article 19. See, e.g., Rios v. … Preliminarily, it should be noted that the immunity granted to defendants by §§ 6-828, 6-835, 6-836, and 6-836.1 of the Act is not, in any respect, a traditional or well-established *381 immunity from personal injury actions

Williams v. Peninsula Regional Medical Center

440 Md. 573 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Nov 21, 2014

Although the Health Care Providers would not qualify for immunity under subsection (a), the General Assembly clearly included them when drafting subsections (b) and (c). … That the General Assembly referred to all of Part III, including these restrictions on admittance, when establishing the prerequisites to qualifying for immunity, demonstrates its intent that the immunity extend beyond

Mandel v. O'HARA

320 Md. 103 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jul 27, 1990

Although the Governor of West Virginia is intimately involved in the state’s budget process, his participation clearly does not qualify for .legislative immunity under Supreme Court of Virginia . … Thus, the Court’s reference to a state’s entire legislative power was simply to point out that the case was clearly one for absolute legislative immunity.

Lee v. Cline

384 Md. 245 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Dec 13, 2004

that the plaintiff had presented no evidence of malice to overcome Cline’s qualified immunity. … Consequently, judicial opinions dealing with the well-established limitations upon public official immunity furnish no authority for judicially creating similar limitations upon the broad statutory immunity granted by the

Miner v. Novotny

304 Md. 164 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Oct 4, 1985

The privilege, and the resultant immunity enjoyed by the publisher, may be either absolute or qualified. As we explained in DiBlasio v. … immunity.”

Cooper v. Rodriguez

443 Md. 680 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jul 24, 2015

App. at 120, 814 A.2d at 134, writing for the Court of Special Appeals, Judge Greene explained that, when the above statutes are read in concert, they “clearly establish[] that a party can bring a viable tort action against … officials are entitled to qualified immunity from negligence claims. . . .

Ashton v. Brown

339 Md. 70 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jun 30, 1995

Yet owing to the qualified immunity enjoyed by most government officials, see Scheuer v. … , qualified public official immunity is a defense only to negligence actions.

Smith v. Danielczyk

400 Md. 98 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jul 25, 2007

In addition to the common law qualified immunity, Baltimore City police officers enjoy an indirect statutory qualified immunity under LGTCA. … immunity, but only qualified public official immunity. 10 .