Case law

Maryland Transportation Authority Police Lodge 34 v. Maryland Transportation Authority

195 Md. App. 124 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Sep 30, 2010

But, to the extent that this dicta ever had force, it has clearly been superseded by later cases. *207 In McCulloch , the Court upheld the Governor’s unilateral executive order establishing a collective bargaining regime … "[T]he General Assembly has the power to establish the terms under which it will permit a waiver of immunity...." Rios v.

Prince George's County v. Blumberg

44 Md. App. 79 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Nov 7, 1979

Public officials, said the court, have a qualified immunity of their own, which is independent from that of the county, and rests upon a different basis. … They are “protected by a qualified immunity against civil liability for non-malicious acts performed within the scope of [their] authority.” Id. at 303.

Prince George's County v. Longtin

190 Md. App. 97 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jan 27, 2010

Lee also held that MTCA provisions conferring qualified immunity on employees could be applied in a State constitutional tort case, as long as the claimant is able to recover against the State. 384 Md. at 262 , 863 A.2d 297 … Caraway, 312 Mont. 1 , 58 P.3d 128, 139 (2002) (In cases involving claims for violations of state constitutional rights, "most state courts which have considered the issue have followed the federal law of qualified immunity

Mitchell v. Housing Authority

200 Md. App. 176 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · May 25, 2011

It concluded, as had the Jackson Court, that *196 that statute clearly satisfies the first prong of the Katz test. … The LGTCA establishes the procedural framework for the actions that may be brought against local government entities where immunity from tort liability for governmental actions has been waived.

Gerety & Antkowiak v. State

249 Md. App. 484 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Feb 24, 2021

To qualify for immunity under that subsection, a defendant must satisfy three elements. … The Fiscal and Policy Note for the 2015 amendments confirms this intention: [The amendment] establishes that immunity applies to situations involving a person who, in good faith provides

Davis v. Board of Education for Prince George's County

222 Md. App. 246 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Apr 3, 2015

The appellants argued to the court that the letter from the MIA established that the Board had not complied with the filing requirements of EA section 4-105, and therefore was not entitled to the immunity set forth in CJ … The appellants also argued that the letter established that the Board did not have any liability insurance, and for that reason as well did not comply with EA section 4-105 and was not entitled to immunity under CJ section

Kapiloff v. Dunn

27 Md. App. 514 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jul 23, 1975

Therefore the right to recover was clearly governed by New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U. S. 254 . … We take it that appellants contend that by creating a constitutional qualified privilege for false statements of fact, the Supreme Court immunized all expressions of opinion about individuals in the public official-public

Woodruff v. Trepel

125 Md. App. 381 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Mar 2, 1999

In Maryland, to establish a prima facie case for defamation, “a plaintiff must ordinarily establish that the defendant made a defamatory statement to a third person; that the statement was false; that the defendant was legally … Woodruffs attorney clearly “had relation” to the child custody proceedings.

Hayes v. State

183 Md. App. 742 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jan 6, 2009

the Assistant State’s Attorney’s qualified immunity.” … In addition, parents are clearly entitled to due process when action is taken to remove their children.

Williams v. Peninsula Regional Medical Center

213 Md. App. 644 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Sep 5, 2013

They filed a statement of claim, a certificate of merit of a qualified expert, and two medical reports from two separate physicians. … Although this case deals with summary judgment and not a motion to dismiss, the standard for what qualifies as good faith and reasonable grounds is instructive.

Ferguson v. Loder

186 Md. App. 707 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jul 7, 2009

Loder moved to dismiss, arguing that she was entitled to qualified immunity. … Loder also joined in the motion, and repeated her claim of qualified immunity under the MTCA. 4 .

Bord v. Baltimore Co.

Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Dec 17, 2014

, or establishes that ‘no reasonable officer could have believed that the conduct complained of was lawful.’” … Appellee contends that the circuit court considered appellant’s allegations in comparison with the case law concerning qualified immunity for public officials and correctly ruled that the actions of both officers were not

Floyd v. Baltimore City

241 Md. App. 199 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jun 4, 2019

Even if she was qualified to “support and possibly to implement the policy of the [Council] and [Committee] regarding the [Act],” she was not qualified “to make or explain that policy.” … remedies following establishment of the merits of its foundational claim seems to us to run counter to the intent of the Act[.]

French v. Hines

182 Md. App. 201 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Oct 3, 2008

Moreover, the court noted that qualified immunity under the MTCA does not attach when a State employee acts with malice or gross negligence. … In its jury instructions, the court below defined “malice” in the context of immunity for violations of State law; the court instructed that appellant was entitled to qualified immunity for violations of State law if he acted

Burns v. Mayor of Rockville

71 Md. App. 293 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · May 11, 1987

They assure us that since municipal immunity was established by judicial decision rather than by the General Assembly, this Court possesses the authority to accomplish their request. We do not accede to their request. … The provisions of Art. 28, § 2-111, which the Court construed, provided: "(a) Establishment; purposes. — The Commission shall establish an adequate comprehensive insurance program: (1) To compensate for injury to or death

Mass Transit Administration v. Granite Construction Co.

57 Md. App. 766 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Mar 6, 1984

More importantly, the evidence does not establish that MTA “misled” Granite. … That provision was clearly intended to avoid one bidder gaining an advantage over other bidders by acquiring information not furnished the other bidders.

Nam v. Montgomery County

127 Md. App. 172 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jul 1, 1999

As such, Montgomery County, Maryland, has waived sovereign immunity as the acts of its employees under the local government tort claims act established in Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article § 5-403. … In that case this Court stated: A legislative waiver of immunity by a municipality is ineffective unless its legislature has clearly stated an intention to waive immunity and either there are funds available for satisfying

Mayor & City Cncl of Balt. v. Wallace

Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Feb 1, 2024

Consistent with the General Assembly’s intent, the Recreational Use Statute does not shield local governments from the well-established common law principle that local governments are not immune from tort liability if performing … sovereign immunity in the future.

Glanden v. State

249 Md. App. 422 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Feb 5, 2021

Based on those changes, we 14 concluded that “[t]he immunity covered by the 2014 legislation clearly covered, in Subsection (c), a person experiencing an overdose when another … In enacting Subsection (c), “the legislature clearly intended to provide limited immunity from arrest, charge, or prosecution, to a person experiencing an overdose if the evidence was obtained solely as a result of the

Mayor & City Cncl of Balt. v. Wallace

Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Feb 1, 2024

Consistent with the General Assembly’s intent, the Recreational Use Statute does not shield local governments from the well-established common law principle that local governments are not immune from tort liability if performing … sovereign immunity in the future.