Case law

Curtis v. DPSCS

District Court, D. Maryland · Jun 14, 2021

In order to establish a claim under either of these statutes,19 “a plaintiff must prove: (1) that he has a disability; (2) that he is otherwise qualified for the . . . benefit in question; and (3) that he was excluded from … Therefore, in order to establish that he is disabled under both the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act, Plaintiff must establish that: “he has a physical or mental impairment; that this impairment implicates at least one major

Martin v. Maryland Department of Natural Resources

District Court, D. Maryland · Jan 29, 2025

As interpreted by the Supreme Court, the principle of sovereign immunity articulated in the Eleventh Amendment establishes that “an unconsenting State is immune from suits brought in federal courts by her own citizeng … Plaintiff argues that his race “was clearly a motivating factor” in the decision to terminate his employment. ECF 1, at 7 745.

Crown Central Petroleum Corp. v. Kleppe

424 F. Supp. 744 · District Court, D. Maryland · Nov 24, 1976

Leases The leases themselves to which the plaintiff is a party as a lessee clearly contemplate the applicability of Executive Order 11246. … The Congressional intent has been clearly stated to the contrary. N.L.R.B. v. Sears, Roebuck and Company, 421 U.S. 132, 164-65 , 95 S.Ct. 1504 , 44 L.Ed.2d 29 (1975).

Rock v. McHugh

819 F. Supp. 2d 456 · District Court, D. Maryland · May 26, 2011

To establish discrimination under the Rehabilitation Act, Plaintiff must demonstrate that he: (1) has a disability; (2) is otherwise qualified for the job in question; and (3) suffered an adverse employment action solely … In addition, because Plaintiff and Defendant do not dispute whether Plaintiff is an “otherwise qualified” individual, the court will also assume that Plaintiff is “otherwise qualified.”

Johns v. Bay State Abrasive Products Co.

89 F. Supp. 654 · District Court, D. Maryland · Mar 24, 1950

The Bay State Abrasive Products Company is a Massachusetts corporation which has never qualified or registered to do business in Maryland. … doing business by a foreign corporatioh in another State, concluded that a simple mechanical or quantitative test as to the activities of a foreign corporation should not mark the boundary line between subjection to and immunity

Dorsey v. Hogan

District Court, D. Maryland · Sep 26, 2022

immunity; and (8) Dorsey is not entitled to injunctive relief. … Indeed, the Eleventh Amendment bars suits for damages against a state in federal court unless the state has waived sovereign immunity or Congress has abrogated its immunity. See Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v.

Neighborhood Development Collaborative v. Murphy

233 F.R.D. 436 · District Court, D. Maryland · Dec 2, 2005

Therefore, the fact that documents in question may consist of the “mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal theories” of AGG attorneys, and would, if prepared in anticipation of litigation, be “absolutely immune … (Under Seal), 748 F.2d 871, 875 (4th Cir.1984), and the proponent of the privilege bears the burden of establishing its applicability. United States v. Jones, 696 F.2d 1069, 1072 (4th Cir.1982).

Beyond Systems, Inc. v. Kraft Foods, Inc.

972 F. Supp. 2d 748 · District Court, D. Maryland · Aug 12, 2013

Second, to pursue a claim under a state statute, a party must establish that it qualifies as one who is eligible to sue under the state statute. … If a single individual with a router can qualify a service provider, the distinction would be largely meaningless. 13 *765 For the same reasons, BSI’s argument as to who qualifies as an ISP leads to patently unreasonable

General Insurance Co. of America v. Walter E. Campbell Co.

241 F. Supp. 3d 578 · District Court, D. Maryland · Mar 10, 2017

WECCO’s primary challenge to the applicability of this exception is Muse’s status as a qualified witness to those facts. WECCO complains, somewhat disingenuously, that she cannot be qualified as such because “Ms. … Muse is fully qualified as a witness through which the Loss Runs can be admitted under Rule 803(6).

Maruti. Com v. Maruti Udyog Ltd.

447 F. Supp. 2d 494 · District Court, D. Maryland · Aug 15, 2006

A trademark, however, need not be federally registered in order to qualify for protection under the ACPA. … Maruti’s mark applies to its cars, which are goods, 19 and § 1127 clearly requires that the goods be “sold or transported in commerce.”

Campbell

District Court, D. Maryland · Nov 25, 2025

Further, neither Eleventh Amendment immunity nor qualified immunity operate as a bar to Campbell’s request for declaratory relief. (2d Am. Compl. at 25); see Lynn v. … Nov. 21, 2019) (qualified immunity does not apply to claims for declaratory relief). 1994)). Such immunity shields a quasi-judicial officer from claims for damages in both their official and individual capacities.

Brown v. Hovatter

516 F. Supp. 2d 547 · District Court, D. Maryland · Oct 17, 2007

The executor license may not be “renewed or reinstated” after six months, at which point the personal representative must “qualify and be licensed as a mortician.” … Not only is the law clearly anti-competitive, but it is also unique.

United States v. Garmatz

445 F. Supp. 54 · District Court, D. Maryland · Dec 5, 1977

These allegations are clearly suffi *60 cient. Grunewald v. United States, supra, 353 U.S. at 397 , 77 S.Ct. 963 . … Dowdy, supra at 222 ; Comment, Brewster, Gravel and Legislative Immunity, 73 Col.L.Rev. 125, 146 (1973).

Rubin v. Gee

128 F. Supp. 2d 848 · District Court, D. Maryland · Feb 7, 2001

It was an objectively unreasonable application of clearly established Supreme Court precedent regarding Rubin’s right to conflict-free counsel. … Again, the right to conflict-free counsel is clearly established Supreme Court law.

In Re Search Warrants Issued on April 26, 2004

353 F. Supp. 2d 584 · District Court, D. Maryland · Dec 23, 2004

However, the Fourth Circuit did note that there is a “common law qualified right of access to the warrant papers ... committed to the sound discretion of the judicial officer who issued the warrant.” … In addressing a media request for sealed search warrant affidavits, the Fourth Circuit recognized in Goetz a “qualified right *590 of access to the warrant papers ... committed to the sound discretion of the judicial officer

Gottesman

District Court, D. Maryland · Mar 2, 2026

Qualified immunity to suit under § 1983 exists to “protect[] government officials ‘from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … Importantly, however, the qualified immunity “defense is not available[] . . .

Norris v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore

78 F. Supp. 451 · District Court, D. Maryland · Jun 18, 1948

As I read it, the opinion in that case does not establish any new principle of federal law but only applies previously established principles to the facts of the particular case. … It is directly contrary to the long established law and practice of Maryland.

Waddell v. Eastern Correctional Institution

District Court, D. Maryland · Sep 10, 2020

Exceptional circumstances include a litigant who “is barely able to read or write,” id. at 162, or clearly “has a colorable claim but lacks the capacity to present it,” Berry v. Gutierrez, 587 F. … failed to exhaust administrative remedies, that the Correctional Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity, and that Waddell has failed to state a plausible claim for relief.

Nissan Motor Corp. in U. S. A. v. Maryland Shipbuilding & Drydock Co.

544 F. Supp. 1104 · District Court, D. Maryland · Aug 3, 1982

Noting that there were no federal cases which considered the question of interspousal immunity or established a federal admiralty rule determining it, the Court *1111 posed the issue as “whether we should establish a federal … VI Smoke damage The evidence clearly establishes and defendant does not dispute the fact that smoke from vessels docked at piers located on defendant’s property is on occasion carried by the wind onto Nissan’s adjoining property

Watson v. Chemical Leaman Tank Lines, Inc.

260 F. Supp. 847 · District Court, D. Maryland · Nov 23, 1966

employee may maintain an action at law against a third party causing the injury. 2 Where certain prescribed conditions exist, a third party becomes a statutory employer, and under § 62 of Art. 101 is entitled to the same immunity … Furthermore, the record clearly shows that the agreement between Chemical and North American is one for performance of the services of carrying cement and not for the sale of cement.