Case law

Bricker v. Warch

152 Md. App. 119 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · May 1, 2003

The court found that “summary judgment on the malicious prosecution case is required because of the provisions of Section 27-802 of the Insurance Article,” which affords a qualified civil immunity to those who make a good … It continues to be qualified to do business in Maryland.

Chinwuba v. Larsen

142 Md. App. 327 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jan 31, 2002

In other tort contexts, Larsen has only a qualified immunity. See CJ § 5-522(b). … This conditional privilege has the same “scope of duty” limitation as an absolute privilege or a qualified immunity.

Houghton v. Forrest

183 Md. App. 15 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Oct 31, 2008

These words of the General Assembly clearly indicate that H.B. 908 did not codify the common law public official immunity doctrine as a whole. … ] statute [CJP § 5-507] was to codify existing public official immunity, and not to extend the scope of qualified immunity beyond its Maryland common law boundaries.

Battle v. State

Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Sep 3, 2021

In this case, the court was not clearly erroneous in concluding that the federal agent did not qualify for immunity from state charges of assault and related offenses. … That finding, which is dispositive of the claim of implied immunity, is not clearly erroneous.

Maryland Board of Physicians v. Geier

225 Md. App. 114 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Oct 1, 2015

Second, the issue is clearly important. … We express no opinion on the applicability of these immunities, or on the interrelationship between them and the qualified, statutory immunity under [¶] § 14-412, as none of those issues are properly before us at this time

Smith v. Upper Chesapeake Medical Ctr.

Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · May 4, 2026

By counting COVID-19 precautions as COVID-19 treatment, he argues, the court widened the scope of immunity beyond that established by the Amended Order. … The court analogized the proper scope of immunity here to the qualified immunity extended to police officers and state officials—a fair comparison in concept, although here, unlike the civil rights setting, at least we

T-UP, Inc. v. Consumer Protection Division

145 Md. App. 27 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jun 26, 2002

The ALJ clearly exercised discretion in not accepting Dr. Pearce as an expert in the diagnosis and treatment of immune and autoimmune disorders, generally, or in the effect of aloe on the human body. … have been established, the immune system is extremely important, an intact immune system is extremely important in the body’s defense against the tumor itself and the possibility of the body getting rid of it." 7 .

Holly v. Maryland Automobile Insurance Fund

29 Md. App. 498 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Dec 31, 1975

.” *503 The previously quoted language in Maddy, supra, clearly demonstrates that the statute meets this test and is valid. … The trial judge concluded from the evidence that “* * * the facts in this case are not sufficient to establish that there was, in fact, emancipation.”

Adams v. Peck

43 Md. App. 168 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jul 13, 1979

An absolute privilege is distinguished from a qualified privilege in that the former provides immunity regardless of the purpose or motive of the defendant, or thé reasonableness of his conduct, while the latter is conditioned … Peck was clearly of that nature, and is therefore protected by the “absolute” privilege set forth in Kennedy v. Cannon, supra.

Pope v. Barbre

172 Md. App. 391 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jan 25, 2007

The MTCA also clearly provides that a State employee acting within his or her scope of employment and without malice or gross negligence is immune from suit. … The legislature clearly could not have intended such a result.

Board of Education v. Marks-Sloan

202 Md. App. 59 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Oct 28, 2011

Danielczyk, 400 Md. 98 , 131 n. 11, 928 A.2d 795 (2007) (stating that “an action based on the tortious conduct of a State employee who qualifies as State personnel is against the State, not the employee”). … “It is well established that the Maryland Workers’ Compensation Act does not exclude tort actions between co-employees, but it does exclude an action in tort by an employee against his employer.” Hill v.

Harris v. State

82 Md. App. 450 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · May 1, 1990

It is clearly and unequivocally established that a conspiracy and a substantive crime conspired at are not “the same offense” within the contemplation of double jeopardy law. No merger is required or even permitted. … Its relevance, its competence, and its significance aside, it clearly was rebutting the defense testimony about misidentification.

Bowie v. State

14 Md. App. 567 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Mar 3, 1972

As the moving party, the appellant bore the burden of establishing a clear factual predicate for his theory of defense. … The compelling circumstances are such that the appellant here would not qualify; the redress is such that the appellant here would not benefit.

Abrams v. City of Rockville

88 Md. App. 588 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Oct 2, 1991

Abrams’ action was therefore clearly time-barred. … Chriqui can qualify as a public official under any of those standards. The record shows that their positions were as “Leader Staff.” They neither ran the program nor were supervisors.

Bender v. Bender

57 Md. App. 593 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Mar 6, 1984

Interspousal Immunity Throughout the proceeding, Penelope Bender relied upon the doctrine of interspousal immunity as a defense to her husband’s suit to recover the money. … , preferring a case by case approach, it clearly paves the way for such actions involving intentional infliction of personal *601 injury.

Bord v. Baltimore County

220 Md. App. 529 · 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

Karangelen v. Snyder

40 Md. App. 393 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Oct 13, 1978

The only issue is whether the appellee is entitled to the protection of governmental immunity. … Accordingly, he is protected by a qualified immunity against civil liability for non-malicious acts performed within the scope of his authority. Carder v. Steiner, 225 Md. 271 , 170 A. 2d 220 (1961); Clark v.

Trim v. YMCA of Central Maryland, Inc.

233 Md. App. 326 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jul 25, 2017

Vol.), § 13-517 of the Education Article establishes a public access program for AEDs in this State. … Did the circuit court err in determining that the YMCA and its employees were immune from civil liability under § 13-517 of the Education Article? 3.

Kee v. State Highway Administration

68 Md. App. 473 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Nov 10, 1986

in situations where the legislature had clearly intended to waive it. … As we explained earlier, the legislature clearly manifested its intent to waive immunity in this type of action if fiscally possible.

In re: B.Cd. & B.Cb.

Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Aug 28, 2025

As a part of a study, the court may order that the child or any parent or guardian be examined by a physician, psychiatrist, psychologist, or other professionally qualified person. … SB 3 changes existing law and establishes some new procedures with which we disagree.