Case law

Mayers v. Washington Adventist Hospital

131 F. Supp. 2d 743 · District Court, D. Maryland · Feb 27, 2001

Therefore, as a preliminary matter, Plain *749 tiff must advance a qualifying disability that would entitle her to the ADA’s protections. … Defendants’ employment policy clearly stated that absenteeism in excess of 3% was considered excessive.

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.

Johnson v. PNC Bank

District Court, D. Maryland · Mar 27, 2020

“‘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 the reasonableness of his conduct[.]’” Smith v. … In sum, given that PNC is entitled to qualified immunity and the Complaint does not adequately allege that PNC acted with malice, Count II warrants dismissal, without prejudice. IV.

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.

Sunbeam Corp. v. MacMillan

110 F. Supp. 836 · District Court, D. Maryland · Feb 27, 1953

But whether the defendant made deliveries to Klein in Maryland or in Delaware did not clearly appear on the evidence, as I recall it. … The fact that a state authorizes the price fixing does not, of course, give immunity to the scheme, absent approval by Congress.”

Weathersbee v. Baltimore City Fire Department

970 F. Supp. 2d 418 · District Court, D. Maryland · Sep 10, 2013

An individual person can only be liable under Title VII if that person qualifies as an “employer” within the meaning of the statute. See Lissau v. … to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws” of the United States.

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.

Hartford Fire Insurance v. Annapolis Bay Charters, Inc.

69 F. Supp. 2d 756 · District Court, D. Maryland · Oct 25, 1999

The parties clearly intended this language to address the use of the physical plant at 7310 Edgewood Road. … The Court holds, however, that this bad faith claim does not qualify as an affirmative defense under Federal Rule 8(c).

B. Elliott (Canada) Ltd. v. John T. Clark & Son of Maryland, Inc.

542 F. Supp. 1367 · District Court, D. Maryland · Jul 13, 1982

Moreover, the facts clearly belie the notion that Clark was acting as anything other than Farrell’s agent. … The burden of establishing such negligence being on the shipper or consignee.

Walker v. Maryland Department of Information and Technology

District Court, D. Maryland · Nov 2, 2020

the ADAAA will be barred so long as Congress has not abrogated immunity. … The ADAAA does purport to abrogate state sovereign immunity.

Aguilar v. Security Officer

District Court, D. Maryland · Feb 22, 2024

In the event this Court finds that Aguilar has stated a constitutional claim, Defendants assert that they are entitled to qualified immunity because they did not violate a clearly established right. … Immunity Under the Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution, a state and its agencies and departments are immune from citizen suits in

Portillo-Osorto

District Court, D. Maryland · Feb 10, 2026

immunity. … Daniel’s conduct was objectively reasonable for qualified immunity purposes, because the application did in fact contain sufficient evidence constituting probable cause and Det.

Giles v. Bert Bell/Pete Rozelle NFL Player Retirement Plan

925 F. Supp. 2d 700 · District Court, D. Maryland · Nov 20, 2012

In addition, the 2007-08 amendments to the Plan established a “Window Period,” between April 1 and July 31, 2008. … He insists that “the Plan clearly disregarded its fiduciary duties to him and made a decision to serve [its] own interests.” Id.

Mandel v. United States Department of Health, Education & Welfare

411 F. Supp. 542 · District Court, D. Maryland · Mar 25, 1976

SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY As a second defense, defendants assert that the doctrine of sovereign immunity bars this action. … Therefore, sovereign immunity does not bar relief being granted to plaintiffs.

Paradise Point, LLC v. Prince George's County

District Court, D. Maryland · May 19, 2021

On April 5, 2019, Plaintiff Paradise Point, an LLC that participates in Prince George’s County’s public auction but does not qualify to participate in its limited auction, filed suit seeking a preliminary injunction and … From the earliest interpretation of the Privileges and Immunities Clause, it has been established that the right to the ownership of privately held property is a fundamental right protected by the provision.

United States v. Ordoñez

328 F. Supp. 3d 479 · District Court, D. Maryland · Aug 31, 2018

But, neither can it be ignored when, as here, it is clearly documented in the records of DHS. … It is true that Ordoñez stated clearly that he did not want to be incarcerated for three more months, waiting for an asylum hearing.

United States v. H. E. Koontz Creamery, Inc.

232 F. Supp. 312 · District Court, D. Maryland · Aug 4, 1964

The Government also cites the well-established rule that the defense of limitations must be raised under the general issue, and not by a special plea in bar. United States v. Kissel, 1910, 218 U. … He “filed a special plea in bar claiming immunity from prosecution” because of testimony given by him before the grand jury in matters concerning the prosecution against him, and had thereby become immune.

United States v. Okeke

671 F. Supp. 2d 744 · District Court, D. Maryland · Nov 25, 2009

His sexual offenses thus clearly fall under the statutory period of five years. … The Court acknowledges that the Fourth Circuit has not expressly ruled on whether fourth degree sex offenses qualify as aggravated felonies; however, this Court finds the test established by the Seventh Circuit in Gattem

Hodgson v. J. W. Lyles, Inc.

335 F. Supp. 128 · District Court, D. Maryland · Dec 16, 1971

Defendants’ expert witness, an official of the National Association of Truck Stop Operators, stated that at each location sufficient services were available to qualify the establishment as a “full-facility truck stop”. … The facts show clearly that the truck stops with which we are dealing in this case offered many services seldom or never offered at ordinary gasoline service stations.

Montgomery v. Schweiker

529 F. Supp. 124 · District Court, D. Maryland · Nov 9, 1981

Although the fact patterns in the cited cases varied, the claimants in each of them shared a common inability clearly to express themselves and to articulate their medical history and present complaints; all of them lacked … The general validity of those regulations was established in this Circuit by the decision in Frady v.