Case law

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.

Green v. Baltimore City Board of School Commissioners

86 F. Supp. 3d 421 · District Court, D. Maryland · Jan 22, 2015

The System then terminated her coverage and through CO-NEXIS, a contractor, sent an “Election Form and Plan Alternatives Letter,” which established her date of coverage loss as March 31, 2013. … had violated its fiduciary duty as the plain *429 tiff continued to pay premiums in reliance on defendant’s communications that her ex-husband was eligible for coverage even though it was in possession of information that clearly

Sayyed v. Wolpoff & Abramson, LLP

733 F. Supp. 2d 635 · District Court, D. Maryland · Aug 20, 2010

The Court initially granted W & A’s Motion to Dismiss on the grounds that, as a law firm, W & A enjoyed full immunity with respect to statements made in in-court pleadings. … The Fourth Circuit reversed, holding that the Act applies to the litigating activities of lawyers who qualify as debt collectors, including their in-court pleadings.

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.

Thompson v. Badgujar

District Court, D. Maryland · Aug 6, 2021

P. 34(a)(1)(A). 6 The discussion that follows does not address the Defendants’ various defenses of qualified immunity, governmental immunity, or public official immunity. … Connor clearly establishes the general proposition that use of force is contrary to the Fourth Amendment if it is excessive under objective standards of reasonableness.” Saucier v.

Press

District Court, D. Maryland · Aug 6, 2026

Thus, Press seeks to remedy a past alleged violation that is not ongoing and fails to establish that an exception to Eleventh Amendment immunity applies. … But the Court should only deny leave to amend on the ground of futility when the proposed amendment is clearly insufficient on its face. Johnson v.

Tarquinio v. Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Lab

District Court, D. Maryland · Apr 11, 2024

Tarquinio noted her disability as “immune dysregulation” and “excessive immune activation from the years of chronic Lyme Disease” on her request. (Id.) … To establish a claim for disability discrimination under the ADA, Plaintiff must prove “(1) that she has a disability, (2) that she is a ‘qualified individual’ for the employment in question, and (3) that [her employer]

Frye v. Hayes

District Court, D. Maryland · Apr 22, 2025

“[A] court may take judicial notice of a document filed in another court not for the truth of the matters asserted in the other litigation, but rather to establish the fact of such litigation and related filings.” … The Petition Hayes filed was clearly a part of the judicial process and was directly related to Frye’s contact with the victim in the criminal matter. As such, Hayes is immune from suit for damages.

Kim

District Court, D. Maryland · Mar 17, 2026

, since the proposed amendments would have also been dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6) on sovereign immunity grounds). … Circuit’s well-established “policy to liberally allow amendment in keeping with the spirit of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a),” Galustian, 591 F.3d at 729.

Henderson v. Claire's Stores, Inc.

607 F. Supp. 2d 725 · District Court, D. Maryland · Apr 8, 2009

Shiflett, 325 Md. 684 , 602 A.2d 1191 (1992), is established when the plaintiff shows that the defendant published the statement (1) with reckless disregard for its truth or (2) with actual knowledge of its falsity. Id. … In other words, the occurrence unfolded in the presence of strangers, and constituted what many would *733 clearly regard as a regrettable but fleeting unpleasantness.

Tate v. Bisignano

District Court, D. Maryland · Jun 12, 2025

Furthermore, the Court in Gardner was moved by the consideration that the individual defendants claimed qualified immunity. See 184 F. Supp. 3d at 185. … This _consideration, which the Court found weighty in Gardner, is simply not at issue here, where there 13 is no right to qualified immunity asserted.

Mitchell v. Crites

District Court, D. Maryland · Jul 13, 2021

Hogan, 443 F.Supp.3d 612, 632 (D.Md. 6 Crites also argues that he is entitled to qualified immunity. … Because the Court concludes that Mitchell’s constitutional claims are subject to dismissal on the merits, the Court need not consider Crites’ qualified immunity defense. 2020).

Matter of GLS

586 F. Supp. 375 · District Court, D. Maryland · Apr 5, 1984

Because I believe that the majority’s holding establishes a procedure which conflicts with principles of law established by the Supreme Court of the United States and by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit … For this is a hard case, as the views of Judge Davidson and of the majority of this Court so clearly reveal.

Davis

District Court, D. Maryland · Jul 21, 2026

“It has been observed that ‘merely private conduct, no matter how discriminatory or wrongful[,]’ fails to qualify as state action.” Philips v. Pitt Cnty. … “[J]udicial immunity is an immunity from suit, not just from ultimate assessment of damages.” Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 11 (1991).

Townsend v. Connell

District Court, D. Maryland · Aug 8, 2023

Townsend’s claims; and (3) Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. 1. … Qualified Immunity Finally, Defendants assert that they are entitled to qualified immunity from the claims in this case.

Buckley v. Airshield Corp.

116 F. Supp. 2d 658 · District Court, D. Maryland · Oct 13, 2000

The expert’s testimony was based upon the assumption that the plaintiff did not qualify for the protections of the Jones Act. Id. at 1355 . … Such admissions qualify as substantive evidence of the fact stated therein. Fed.R.Evid. 801(d)(2).

Byrd v. Local Union No. 24, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers

375 F. Supp. 545 · District Court, D. Maryland · Mar 19, 1974

Section 8(f) (3) of the N.L.R.A. ( 29 U.S.C. § 158 (f) (3)), also allows for the contractual establishment of a hiring hall or a pool of men out of which a union may refer qualified applicants for jobs with particular employers … Whites working in the challenged trades far more, if at all, than qualified Blacks working in such trades.”

Howe v. Maryland Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services

District Court, D. Maryland · Nov 19, 2024

Defendants argue that, as state personnel, they are entitled to Maryland statutory immunity. (Mot. at 10–11). … To state a claim under these statutes, a plaintiff must allege plausible facts to establish that “(1) she has a disability, (2) she is otherwise qualified to receive the benefits of a public service, program, or activity

Harden v. Smythe

District Court, D. Maryland · Nov 19, 2024

“It has been observed that ‘merely private conduct, no matter how discriminatory or wrongful[,]’ fails to qualify as state action.” Philips v. Pitt Cnty. Mem’! … Indeed, Plaintiffs clearly allege a failure on the part of Defendant Smythe, not BRHBP, to adequately maintain Plaintiffs’ residence.

Seymour v. A.S. Abell Co.

557 F. Supp. 951 · District Court, D. Maryland · Jan 25, 1983

DEFENDANTS’ ALLEGEDLY DEFAMATORY STATEMENTS ARE PRIVILEGED UNDER THE MARYLAND COMMON LAW QUALIFIED PRIVILEGE TO PUBLISH MATTERS INVOLVING VIOLATION OF THE LAW “It is well settled that in Maryland a newspaper enjoys a qualified … Since the allegedly defamatory statements concerned Seymour’s role in Operation Bear Trap II, they clearly related to Seymour’s official conduct.