Case law

Rice v. Dunn

81 Md. App. 510 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Feb 2, 1990

, alternatively, qualified immunity. … “Conspiracy to predetermine the outcome of a judicial proceeding, while clearly improper, does not pierce the immunity extended to judges____ As long as the judge’s ultimate acts are judicial actions taken within the court

Bowling v. Brown

57 Md. App. 248 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jan 11, 1984

That the individual Town Council members do not have qualified immunity for discretionary acts performed without malice; and IV. … Qualified Immunity Defendants also cite James v.

Montgomery County Public Schools v. Donlon

233 Md. App. 646 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Aug 30, 2017

The court also found it “deeply troubling” that MCPS could qualify as a State entity for Eleventh Amendment immunity purposes, but not for WBL purposes. … Having established that SPP § 5-301 states clearly that the WBL applies only to State employees in the executive branch (and applicants), we continue our statutory analysis by examining SPP § 5-307, an election of procedures

Fox v. Wills

151 Md. App. 31 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · May 6, 2003

, that the complaint against them was for negligence, and therefore the court did not need to determine if they were entitled to absolute judicial immunity because, qualified immunity was sufficient to protect them). … We need not address whether the guardian ad litem in this case enjoys absolute judicial immunity because his qualified immunity is clear.

Brooks v. State

3 Md. App. 485 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Apr 3, 1968

be qualified lo serve.” … any qualified to serve.

Davis v. Muse

51 Md. App. 93 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Mar 3, 1982

Once these elements have been established, a qualified immunity attaches, namely, "in the absence of malice, the individual involved is free from liability.” Id. at 323-324 . (Emphasis added.) … These well-established principles of Maryland law were not imparted to the jury in the lower court’s instructions.

Conaway v. State

108 Md. App. 475 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Mar 1, 1996

The original version of the Act waived immunity in certain specified actions *488 to the extent and in the amount that the State was covered by a program of insurance established by the Treasurer. … If the Legislature had intended to waive immunity in all actions in which the State is liable, it could have done so clearly and unequivocally.

Ireton v. Chambers

229 Md. App. 149 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jul 28, 2016

More precisely, it is a case about whether a court can enter a judgment for nothing in damages against a defendant who has qualified immunity from “civil liability.” … We must decide whether the qualified immunity from “civil liability,” within the meaning of CJP § 5-507(a)(1), entails immunity from the entry of a civil judgment or just immunity from a judgment for damages.

McCoy v. Hatmaker

135 Md. App. 693 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Dec 26, 2000

If the official can establish these two factors, he receives qualified immunity, that is, immunity in the absence of malice. DiPino, 354 Md. at 48-49 , 729 A.2d 354 . … Id. at 19 , 729 A.2d 354 (“When the affirmative conditions for qualified immunity are satisfied, the only qualifier limiting such immunity is the presence of malice on the part of the officer.”).

Dehn Motor Sales, LLC v. Schultz

212 Md. App. 374 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jun 26, 2013

immunity. … “Qualified immunity shields government officials from civil damages liability unless the official violated a statutory or constitutional right that was clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct.”

Maxwell v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority

98 Md. App. 502 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Dec 7, 1993

The garage shall be clearly marked as property of the County. Section 5.04. WMATA shall have a permanent right to approve all signs erected by the County.... Section 5.06. … The County will operate the garage facility within parameters established by the WMATA Board in compliance with the WMATA Compact requirements.

Board of Trustees of State Universities & Colleges v. Fineran

75 Md. App. 289 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · May 13, 1988

claims against the individual defendants, they enjoy a qualified governmental immunity by reason of their discretionary duties that remains intact upon Fineran’s failure to establish that they (i) acted with malice or (ii … ) violated any of his “clearly established” rights.

Sherrard v. Hull

53 Md. App. 553 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Feb 2, 1983

This immunity, like that of judicial immunity, is based upon public policy. … What constitutes petitioning is not clearly defined.

Bender v. Suburban Hospital, Inc.

134 Md. App. 7 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Sep 7, 2000

Bender failed to establish a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Suburban failed to meet the second prong of the test to qualify for HCQIA immunity. B Dr. … Bender failed to establish a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Suburban failed to meet the fourth prong of the test to qualify for HCQIA immunity. IV Finally, Dr.

Utica Mutual Insurance v. Gaithersburg-Washington Grove Fire Department, Inc.

53 Md. App. 589 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Feb 2, 1983

The trial court erred in ruling that the appellee had established the defense of governmental immunity; 2. … If these two conditions are found to exist, a qualified immunity attaches. This immunity frees the individual from liability in the absence of malice. Id.

Berg v. Merricks

20 Md. App. 666 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Apr 18, 1974

No instructional standard was established. The judge was clearly correct in refusing to permit the jury to speculate on the “might have been theories propounded by appellants.” “ ... … The statute clearly deprives the superintendent of the limited protection of governmental immunity enjoyed by public officers. In addition, Lyman v.

Mixter v. Farmer

215 Md. App. 536 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Dec 19, 2013

Whether the trial court erred in granting appellees’ motions for summary judgment and holding that absolute judicial privilege and/or qualified privilege immunized appellees from the following claims: 1) defamation, libel … Carr concluded that “if there was immunity from liability for defamation, there was immunity from liability for the other alleged torts claimed by the [plaintiff] to have been committed.” Id. at 583 , 177 A.2d 841 .

Coit v. Nappi

248 Md. App. 44 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Oct 1, 2020

The court’s extensive and thorough Decision and Order clearly, and in detail, considered the relevant facts. … (2) A local government may not assert governmental or sovereign immunity to avoid the duty to defend or indemnify an employee established in this subsection.

Houston v. Safeway Stores, Inc.

109 Md. App. 177 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Apr 1, 1996

In toto, that section, as codified, now reads: [Immunity]—Customer use of employee toilet facility in retail establishment. 1 ^ (a) Definition. … We note' that House Bill 162 was captioned: Retail Establishments—Toilet Facilities—Immunity from Civil Liability.

Wilson v. Jackson

66 Md. App. 744 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Mar 12, 1986

“Qualified or ‘good faith’ immunity is an affirmative defense that ... has both an ‘objective’ and a ‘subjective’ aspect. … Characteristically the Court has defined these elements by identifying the circumstances in which qualified immunity would not be available.