Case law

Smith v. Edwards

46 Md. App. 452 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Sep 5, 1980

Governmental immunity was not even discussed. Appellants also allege that their actions were without malice and thus individual council members were entitled to qualified immunity. … We are unable to follow the argument because qualified immunity applies to actions for tort and has no application to acts which are ultra vires.

State v. Panagoulis

3 Md. App. 330 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Mar 12, 1968

Sullivan, 234 Md. 67 (a divorce case): ‘Acquiescence to or assent to what one cannot prevent does not amount to a voluntary agreement thereto.’ ” 4 We must take this language to mean what it clearly says. … We also think that there were no other circumstances shown sufficient to establish that the appellee otherwise waived immunity by his conduct.

Friedetzky v. Hsia

223 Md. App. 723 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jul 6, 2015

The Limited Immunity Provided by the UCCJEA 1. … temporary emergency jurisdiction over the custody issue); In re B.P., 184 P.3d 334, 350 (Mont. 2008) (concluding that based on the definition of “child custody proceeding,” “the UCCJEA drafters and the states which adopted it clearly

Baltimore City Board of School Commissioners v. Koba Institute, Inc.

194 Md. App. 400 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Sep 13, 2010

Although not conceding these items in this Court, this admission in the circuit court is clearly a waiver of limitations as to the June-July invoiced amounts. … Subsection (b) establishes a base grant amount for each jurisdiction and subsection (c) sets forth a formula for increasing the grant.

HILLSMERE SHORES IMPROVEMENT ASSOCIATION, INC. v. Singleton

182 Md. App. 667 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Oct 30, 2008

HSIA was established as the administrator of the District. … Moreover, as already discussed, appellees’ adverse possession of the disputed properties does not qualify as “subdivision” under the County Code.

Linz v. Montgomery Cnty.

Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Nov 1, 2022

The defendant moved to dismiss based on qualified immunity under the Maryland Tort Claims Act (MTCA), Md. Code (1984, 2021 Repl. Vol.) §§ 12-101 through 12-110 of the State Government Article (SG). … The circuit court dismissed the claim against the employee based on qualified immunity, and then dismissed the claim against the State based on limitations.

Floyd v. Baltimore City

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[.]

Maryland National Capital Park & Planning Commission v. Crawford

59 Md. App. 276 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jun 6, 1984

Yet, Judge Bowen observed: You have someone here, someone who was clearly superior and better qualified, but no concurrence was asked for. … The Commission’s concurrence procedure reflects this concept by allowing a “clearly more qualified” non-minority candidate an equal opportunity for each available employment position.

Brady v. Ralph M. Parsons Co.

82 Md. App. 519 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · May 2, 1990

The owner of the project, the State of Maryland, was not immune under the worker’s compensation laws, but was entitled to sovereign immunity. … In addition, the factual situation in Gardenvillage is clearly inapposite to the instant case.

Dolan v. Kent Research & Manufacturing Co.

63 Md. App. 55 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · May 9, 1985

Whether appellant failed to establish certain elements of his claim and, therefore, entitled appellee to judgment as a matter of law. 2. … As a result of this conclusion, we need not address appellee’s assertion that appellant failed to establish the elements of his claim.

Bailey v. City of Annapolis

Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Sep 1, 2021

-25- Appellees on grounds that “[p]ublic officials are entitled to qualified immunity from negligence claims.”13 In order to prevail under either a statutory or common … -27- challenged the application of qualified immunity to court-appointed trustees in the judicial sale of a condominium. Id. at 560.

Montgomery County v. Schooley

97 Md. App. 107 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jul 8, 1993

The problem is a very practical *121 one, but one that raises quite clearly the underlying Constitutional concern. … This the doctrine of legislative immunity will not allow.”

Fitzgerald v. Montgomery County Board of Education

25 Md. App. 709 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · May 1, 1975

Henkels & McCoy, Inc. supra, effectively lays to rest any suggestion that the Maryland rule is qualified. … The defense of partial sovereign immunity was not raised by appellee. See Maryland Rule 323 b.

Bell Atlantic-Maryland, Inc. v. Maryland Stadium Authority

113 Md. App. 640 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Feb 5, 1997

Appellant asserts that there is a distinction between the sovereign immunity of a state that bars suits unless immunity is waived and the limited immunity of a municipality that bars certain suits in the exercise of its governmental … and was not established as a profit-making facility.

Anderson v. Hammerman

Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Nov 6, 2024

First, they argue, “the General Assembly’s incorporation of the FDCPA into the MCDCA is clearly inconsistent with litigation privilege.” … It concluded that the litigation privilege does not provide immunity from claims for malicious prosecution, principally because if it did so it “would eviscerate [that] long-established cause of action.”

Anderson v. Hammerman

Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Nov 6, 2024

First, they argue, “the General Assembly’s incorporation of the FDCPA into the MCDCA is clearly inconsistent with litigation privilege.” … It concluded that the litigation privilege does not provide immunity from claims for malicious prosecution, principally because if it did so it “would eviscerate [that] long-established cause of action.”

Penhollow v. BD. OF COMMISSIONERS CECIL COUNTY

116 Md. App. 265 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jun 30, 1997

Section 5[-]321(b)(l) [of the Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article] grants immunity of the parties on the mere negligence basis and it’s clear under the law that you’ve got to allege facts clearly which show the official … It held that section 5—321(b)(1) of the Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article “grants immunity [to] the parties on the mere negligence basis and it’s clear under the law that you’ve got to allege facts clearly which show

Q C Corp. v. Maryland Port Administration

68 Md. App. 181 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Nov 10, 1986

We hold, therefore, that the post-1976 legislative actions we have discussed were not intended to narrow the waiver of sovereign immunity in contract cases as established by Ch. 450, Acts of 1976: Our holding is fully confirmed … has already been waived with respect to non-procurement contracts” and that "if House Bill 1684 is enacted, it would clearly prevent the State from asserting sovereign immunity with respect to contracts entered into prior

C & K LORD, INC. v. Carter

74 Md. App. 68 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Feb 4, 1988

Once the court concluded that the settling defendants were immune from liability under the Act, they were likewise immune from liability for contribution or indemnity. American Radiator & Standard Sanitary Corp. v. … The trial judge’s instruction clearly met this standard. *93 VIII.

Thompson v. State

16 Md. App. 560 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jan 8, 1973

, a fortiori, qualify in a probable cause setting. … The appellant agrees that the credibility of this primary informant is established beyond dispute.