Case law

Hall v. Sullivan

231 F.R.D. 468 · District Court, D. Maryland · Oct 11, 2005

Were it necessary to decide this issue, it is questionable under the circumstances presented here whether CBDD would be able to establish good cause why waiver of its privilege claims should not occur, especially since they … Clearly, the most direct, least burdensome way of determining the level of franchise law experience of the CBDD lawyers is to depose the specific lawyers who represented Mr.

Gordon v. Maryland Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services

District Court, D. Maryland · Nov 23, 2021

However, the complaint must allege sufficient facts to establish those elements.” Walters v. McMahen, 684 F.3d 435, 439 (4th Cir. 2012) (citation omitted). … The Eleventh Amendment bars suit against a state, state agents, and state instrumentalities absent congressional abrogation of that immunity or the state’s clear and unambiguous waiver of its immunity.

Talley v. Arinc, Inc.

222 F.R.D. 260 · District Court, D. Maryland · Jul 14, 2004

Obar failed to disclose, however, how many employees were in the relevant pool of qualified candidates. … The interests of former employees is clearly monetary damages for past alleged mistreatment.

Outdoor Amusement Bus. Ass'n, Inc. v. Dep't of Homeland Sec.

334 F. Supp. 3d 697 · District Court, D. Maryland · Sep 12, 2018

Litigation History Consistent with the regulations described above, DOL has established various procedures to determine whether a qualified U.S. worker is available to fill the job described in the employer's petition. … Despite plaintiffs' vague protests to the contrary, this suit clearly represents a facial, rather than an as-applied, challenge.

Jacobs v. State of Maryland Department of Natural Resources

203 F. Supp. 2d 485 · District Court, D. Maryland · May 31, 2002

In his letter of March 14, 2002, AAG Gill clearly stated that defendants Rhoads and Sewell had not been properly served with process in the case. … However, it is well established that neither a state nor its officials acting in their official capacities are “persons” under § 1983. Will v.

Canty v. Bishop

District Court, D. Maryland · Jan 18, 2023

Qualified Immunity Defendants argue they are entitled to qualified immunity and that summary judgment is appropriate on that basis. … Further, the qualified immunity defense is unavailing, both because the constitutional rights were well-established at the time of the incidents at issue and because there exists a material 3 According to the use of force

Tidewater Finance Co. v. Williams

341 B.R. 530 · District Court, D. Maryland · May 9, 2006

Rather, § 727(a)(8) defines a condition that the Debtor was required to satisfy in order to qualify for a benefit, namely, a discharge of her debts. … The Su *540 preme Court has clearly stated, however, that “tolling is inappropriate when a claimant has voluntarily chosen not to protect his rights within the limitations- period.”

Waheed v. State of Maryland

District Court, D. Maryland · Oct 22, 2021

(“SPP”) §§ 21-101 (establishing MSRPS); 21-103 (establishing MSRPS’s Board); 21-117 (establishing MSRA as “an agency of the Board”). … Courts in Maryland apply a two-part test to determine whether sovereign immunity applies in a specific case: “(1) whether the entity asserting immunity qualifies for its protection; and, if so, (2) whether the legislature

Gillespie v. United States

District Court, D. Maryland · Jul 30, 2024

“Once service has been contested, the plaintiff bears the burden of establishing the validity of service pursuant to Rule 4.” Id. … Rule 12(b)(1) – The FSHCAA, FTCA, and Sovereign Immunity “[T]he FSHCAA ‘essentially makes the U.S. government the medical malpractice insurer for qualifying . . . health centers, their officers, employees,

Pritchett Control, Inc. v. Hartford Accident & Indem. Co.

361 F. Supp. 3d 530 · District Court, D. Maryland · Jan 10, 2019

The state analog to the federal Miller Act, the statute protects suppliers who furnish material and labor on public construction projects who, but for sovereign immunity, could secure payment using a mechanics lien. … Co. , 325 F.2d 54 , 62 (9th Cir. 1963) ("[a]ll that is required [to establish a Miller Act Claim] is proof that the labor or material was furnished in the prosecution of the work provided for in the prime contract, and that

DiVivo v. Egger

601 F. Supp. 1259 · District Court, D. Maryland · Dec 28, 1984

.); but did not meet the standards subsequently established by the Supreme Court on June 30, 1983 in United States v. Baggot, 463 U.S. 476 , 103 S.Ct. 3164 , 77 L.Ed.2d 785 (1983), and United States v. … The threshold inquiry of whether a case is one of first impression is clearly intended to focus on the Supreme Court’s prior precedent (see Solem v.

Kaur v. Baltimore County Police Department

District Court, D. Maryland · Apr 26, 2023

The record evidence clearly establishes that the Sears Defendants had probable cause to believe that Plaintiff had committed theft of Sears’ property from the store. … In addition, public officials (including police officers) are entitled to qualified immunity for federal constitutional violations when “in light of clearly established law, [they] could reasonably believe

Olivares v. NASA

934 F. Supp. 698 · District Court, D. Maryland · Jul 15, 1996

But employees who file EEO complaints are not immune from decisions affecting their working conditions, including for example, as the present case illustrates, reprimands for making threats to co-workers and being subject … So long as they were not practicing illicit discrimination — and clearly they were not — they had a right to relocate his office, to assign or not assign him to various work projects, and to reprimand him when, as here, he

Doe v. American National Red Cross

866 F. Supp. 242 · District Court, D. Maryland · Sep 30, 1994

In December 1982, the CDC published another article entitled “Possible Transfusion-Association Acquired Immunity Deficiency Syndrome.” … The record does not establish that these numbers were clearly known or capable of responsible estimate by January 1984, and plaintiffs have thus not proven that the Red Cross was negligent in striking the balance which it

BROWN BY BROWN v. Kennedy Krieger Institute, Inc.

997 F. Supp. 661 · District Court, D. Maryland · Jan 20, 1998

The burden is on the party moving for summary judgment to demonstrate clearly that there is no genuine issue of material fact, and that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Barwick v. … In the former, “day-to-day decisions regarding care... necessarily will be made in many instances by employees without formal training but who are subject to the supervision of qualified persons.” Id. at 323 n. 30.

Stanger v. Glenn L. Martin Co.

56 F. Supp. 163 · District Court, D. Maryland · Mar 24, 1944

or a physically separated branch establishment. … If the term “administrative” be defined as merely a lower form of “executive”, then all executives would qualify under the “administrative” definition and the term might well have been left out of the Act.

LEGAL SERVICES CORP., ETC. v. Ehrlich

457 F. Supp. 1058 · District Court, D. Maryland · Jun 7, 1978

Shortly after it came into being, Legal Services developed a short-term plan to expand legal services, beginning in 1977 and established the following “[f]our priorities”: a. … Additionally, it is to be noted that there is little or no basis for implying a private cause of action under the guidelines established by the Supreme Court in Cort v.

United States v. Wampler

10 F. Supp. 609 · District Court, D. Maryland · Apr 24, 1935

It will be noted that neither section expressly 'provides for imprisonment for nonpayment of fine but it is clearly implied that this is authorized and it has been uniformly so held. Ex parte Jackson, 96 U. … This has been the long established- practice, and was followed in this particular case.

Bogues

District Court, D. Maryland · Aug 25, 2026

Defendants do not meaningfully argue that they are immune from suit for injunctive relief. And such suits clearly may proceed. … But at the same time, Bogues provides no law, binding or persuasive, which establishes the same.

Adkins v. Barnhart

District Court, D. Maryland · Sep 3, 2024

Adkins offers no support for this conclusory allegation regarding Gelsinger’s knowledge. 15 Qualified immunity under § 1983 and statutory immunity under the Maryland Tort Claims Act (“MTCA”) are alternative bases for … or statutory rights were clearly established such that, at the time of the violation, a reasonable person would have understood that her actions violated a constitutional right.