Case law

Williams v. Mayor & City Council

128 Md. App. 1 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Sep 7, 1999

The Maryland case law establishes unequivocally that police officers in the course of their public duties are public officials within the contemplation of the qualified immunity law. … We hold that in enacting the immunity provision of Ch. 307 of the Acts of 1979, it clearly was not the legislative intent to diminish or to curtail in any way the qualified immunity otherwise enjoyed by a law enforcement

Town of Port Deposit v. Petetit

113 Md. App. 401 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jan 30, 1997

Whether a defendant possesses a qualified immunity is ultimately an issue of law for the court to determine. … of an absolute immunity defense or a Harlow type of qualified immunity defense; the issues would be legal ones.

Artis v. Cyphers

100 Md. App. 633 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jun 8, 1994

The Mitchell Court continued, at 526, 105 S.Ct. at 2815 : “Unless the plaintiffs allegations state a claim of violation of clearly established law, a defendant pleading qualified im *650 munity is entitled to dismissal before … judgment for the defendant on the ground that even under the defendant’s version of the facts the defendant’s conduct violated clearly established law, whether the law clearly proscribed the actions the defendant claims

Brown v. Meda

74 Md. App. 331 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jun 24, 1988

[emphasis added, bracketed material in original] As was clearly stated by the Court in Moore v. … The emphasized portion of that statement is simply another way of saying that, in a case involving complex medical procedures or the exercise of professional skill and judgment, a jury is not qualified to determine whether

Thacker v. City of Hyattsville

135 Md. App. 268 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Nov 14, 2000

immunity under federal law, and that, as a matter of law, such findings establish lack of malice and qualified immunity under section 5-507. … Because Judge Williams clearly applied the objective federal standard for qualified immunity, we hold that his decision that the defendants were entitled to qualified immunity from section 1983 liability did not collaterally

Ford v. Baltimore City Sheriff's Office

149 Md. App. 107 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Dec 27, 2002

The standards for establishing a prima facie case of negligence have been clearly established. The Court of Appeals stated in Bobo v. … Clearly, the Court would not have had to instruct the circuit court to make a qualified immunity determination absent a malice finding if no immunity existed for State constitutional torts. See Lee v.

Williams v. Prince George's County

112 Md. App. 526 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Dec 4, 1996

Because of these considerations, immunity is granted to officers who act reasonably, albeit mistakenly, in light of clearly established law and the information they possessed without the benefit of hindsight. … immunity because their actions were in conformity with “clearly established” legal rules.

D'Aoust v. Diamond

197 Md. App. 195 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Dec 29, 2010

Qualified Immunity Having established that appellees are entitled to assert the defense of qualified immunity, we now come to the heart of the matter on appeal: whether the facts alleged and their permissible inferences would … “qualified” immunity.

Davis v. DiPino

99 Md. App. 282 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Feb 23, 1994

Was Detective DiPino entitled to qualified immunity in the claim brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 ? B. … The federal constitutional right that the plaintiff claims has been violated must have been “clearly established” at the time of the alleged violation.

Lee v. Cline

149 Md. App. 38 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Dec 26, 2002

In Lee’s case, the circumstances do not so clearly establish that there was a second stop. … The Qualified Immunity Debate At the summary judgment hearing, Lee’s attorney argued that, even if the evidence was insufficient to establish that Cline acted with malice, Lee must be allowed to proceed on his constitutional

Hines v. French

157 Md. App. 536 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jul 2, 2004

Because of these considerations, immunity is granted to officers who act reasonably, albeit mistakenly, in light of clearly established law and the information they possessed without the benefit of hindsight. … Rather, the question is whether, confronted with the facts of this case, reasonable police officers should have known that clearly established constitutional law prohibited the methods used in the search.

Simms v. Constantine

113 Md. App. 291 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jan 29, 1997

Ironically, it would mean that the police, who do not ordinarily hold law degrees, would be required to know the clearly established law, but prosecutors would not. 500 U.S. at 495 , 111 S.Ct. at 1944 (citations omitted). … Fitzgerald (1982), we "completely reformulated qualified immunity,” replacing the common-law subjective standard with an *314 objective standard that allows liability only where the official violates "clearly established

Thomas v. City of Annapolis

113 Md. App. 440 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jan 31, 1997

If those three conditions are met, the public official enjoys a qualified immunity in the absence of “malice.” … The parties herein do not always clearly distinguish between immunity and privilege.

State v. Keller-Bee

224 Md. App. 1 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jul 6, 2015

As will be discussed in detail infra, Maryland Courts have clearly established that a judge is immune from tort liability for judicial acts. … The Court continued: The determination of [w]hether a function qualifies for absolute immunity is made objectively and not subjectively.

Cunningham v. Baltimore Cnty.

246 Md. App. 630 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jul 1, 2020

The Supreme Court has stated that qualified immunity shields government officials performing discretionary functions from civil damages liability “so long as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … The court found that Corporal Ruby was entitled to qualified immunity because his conduct did not violate “clearly established” constitutional rights.

Rodriguez v. State

218 Md. App. 573 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Aug 27, 2014

If the official can establish those two factors, he receives qualified immunity, that is, immunity in the absence of malice. 135 Md. App. at 719 (emphasis added). … Moreover, the Court held that, because the trustees “were clearly not public officials,” it was plain that “the concept of qualified public official immunity is inapplicable to their actions in connection with the judicial

Bradley v. Fisher

113 Md. App. 603 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Feb 5, 1997

With these considerations in mind, we turn to the case sub judice. *611 Qualified Immunity The appellants, the remaining defendants below, 3 asserted a qualified immunity defense. … established law.

Leese v. Baltimore County

64 Md. App. 442 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Sep 9, 1985

In recognition of these competing interests, the Court has recognized absolute and qualified immunities. … Clearly, none of the individual appellees in this suit even approach the level of status that would merit absolute immunity. Rather, they warrant at most the qualified immunity accorded all other public employees.

Winkles v. State

40 Md. App. 616 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Nov 3, 1978

We see the alleged agreement — accepting arguendo appellant’s version of it — as neither a plea bargain nor a promised grant of immunity. … Bowie involved an alleged offer of immunity by the State’s Attorney which, we said, he had no authority to make. 3 In this instance, the State’s Attorney was clearly authorized to proceed or not to proceed with the prosecution

Baltimore Police Department v. Cherkes

140 Md. App. 282 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Sep 6, 2001

claimed is a qualified immunity, not an absolute immunity, however, application of the collateral order doctrine is not as clear-cut, for two reasons. … In contrast, “public official immunity is qualified, not absolute.