Case law

Brown v. Ashton

93 Md. App. 25 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Nov 17, 1992

First, the circuit court held that “there is a clear qualified immunity to the police officers, the City and the Chief on the common law counts.” … Nor can the claims of false imprisonment or invasion of privacy, given the probable cause that existed, overcome the appellees’ qualified immunity. Simons v.

Floyd v. Balt. City Council

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[.]

American Civil Liberties Union Foundation v. Leopold

223 Md. App. 97 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · May 28, 2015

(b) (1) Personal records may not be created unless the need for the information has been clearly established by the unit collecting the records. … Without first having “clearly established” a need for the documents, Mr. Leopold should not have been “using” them at all, whether he wore his County Executive Hat or his Candidate Hat at the time.

Norville v. Anne Arundel County Board of Education

160 Md. App. 12 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Dec 6, 2004

Further, the court determined that it need not address appellees’ arguments regarding sovereign immunity and qualified immunity. Accordingly, appellant’s ADEA claim against the Board was then his only surviving claim. … Maryland has clearly not waived its immunity from suits brought under the ADEA, and this immunity applies to private actions brought against its agencies in both federal and state courts.

Board of Education v. Beka Industries, Inc.

190 Md. App. 668 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Feb 26, 2010

State Agency We start initially with the first factor, “whether the entity asserting immunity qualifies for its protection.” Stem, 380 Md. at 700 , 846 A.2d 996 . … Thus, the first factor in the test for assessing whether the doctrine of sovereign immunity applies, whether the entity asserting immunity qualifies for protection, is answered in the affirmative. B.

Phillips v. Chang

Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Mar 28, 2023

Dismissal on this ground is proper when “the facts and allegations [in the complaint] establish a lack of subject[-]matter jurisdiction.” Id. … The Supreme Court stated clearly that it has “no intention of relinquishing [its jurisdiction] to any degree or extent.” Id.

Blue Buffalo v. Comptroller

243 Md. App. 693 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Dec 20, 2019

That an activity is not ancillary does not end this analysis; unprotected activities only forfeit the statutory immunity when they establish a nontrivial additional connection with the taxing State. … Such a sweeping definition would render the immunity entirely subject to corporate discretion. 4 This relationship is clearly articulated in Blue Buffalo’s Pet Detective Manual.

Manders v. Brown

101 Md. App. 191 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jul 5, 1994

The only support provided by Manders is the cryptic allegation that “the trial court’s view on [appellees’] ‘immunity’ as individuals for acts as public officials clearly suggested that it was impossible for [Manders] to … If appellees cannot establish that the actions *216 in question were taken while they were functioning as legislators, the legislative immunity defense should be rejected.

Jones v. Maryland-National Capital Park & Planning Commission

82 Md. App. 314 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Mar 30, 1990

As a “public official,” a police officer is protected by a qualified immunity against civil liability for non-malicious acts performed within the scope of his authority. … This immunity is in no way circumscribed by describing clearly discretionary duties as if they were mandatory in nature.

Tatum v. Gigliotti

80 Md. App. 559 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Nov 3, 1989

Slye was qualified as a physician with a specialization in allergies. Dr. Slye pointed out in his testimony that the treatment of asthma was part of his specialization in allergy and immunology. … It is established as a general principle that only a party aggrieved by a court’s judgment may take an appeal and that one may not appeal or cross-appeal from a judgment wholly in his favor. Adm’r, Motor Veh. Adm. v.

Tschechtelin v. Samuels

124 Md. App. 389 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jan 5, 1999

Sovereign Immunity The doctrine of sovereign immunity is well established in Maryland. ARA Health Services, Inc. v. Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services, 344 Md. 85, 91 , 685 A.2d 435 (1996); Katz v. … . *398 The Court of Appeals has set out the preliminary questions when the defense of sovereign immunity has been raised: (1) whether the entity asserting immunity qualifies for its protection; and, if so, (2) whether the

Runnels v. Newell

179 Md. App. 168 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Mar 28, 2008

Newell also argues that he was entitled to federal qualified immunity with regard to the 42 U.S.C. section 1983 claim. … For that reason, this court finds that Newell is entitled to federal qualified immunity on Count I.

State Highway Admin v. Brawner Builders

248 Md. App. 646 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Dec 18, 2020

Faddis has clearly abandoned that position. … with respect to the waiver of immunity in both tort and contract actions.

West American Insurance v. Popa

108 Md. App. 73 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Feb 1, 1996

Frye , however, only indirectly addressed the issue we address today, and it involved parent-child immunity, not sovereign immunity* Although parent-child immunity is clearly based on the public policy of Maryland, the exclusionary … There, we noted that if an exclusion in an uninsured motorist policy were invalid, it would only be invalid up to the $20,000/$40,000 minimum; but we immediately qualified this statement by inserting a footnote recognizing

Picone v. Talbott

29 Md. App. 536 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Dec 31, 1975

of the Plaintiffs case since the evidence clearly established probable cause [for the arrest].” … immunity.”

Jackson v. Housing Opportunities Commission

44 Md. App. 304 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Dec 6, 1979

The established rule is that in determining whether the Legislature intended to waive expressly the defense of sovereign immunity, the Legislature must have granted the agency the power to sue and be sued and the “action … When read as a whole, § 1-3 clearly expresses a legislative intent to waive the WSSC’s sovereign immunity.

Chadderton v. State

54 Md. App. 86 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Mar 4, 1983

Clearly, an adequate basis had not been established for permitting the witness to express an opinion of the appellant’s character. … Jurow, "New Data on the Effect of a 'Death-Qualified’ Jury on the Guilt Determination Process,” 84 Harv.

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