Case law

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.

Young & Simon, Inc. v. Bernstein

486 F. Supp. 1012 · District Court, D. Maryland · Dec 21, 1979

Not being a federal question case, the qualifying language contained in the remainder of the second sentence of 28 U.S.C. § 1441 (b) has no application. … In the latter form the new word “such” appears, and it qualifies the word “action.”

Logue v. Patient First Corp.

246 F. Supp. 3d 1124 · District Court, D. Maryland · Mar 28, 2017

Defendants clearly do not consent, so the Court must address the question of whether “justice so requires” the granting of the request to file a second amended complaint. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). … The Act establishes the Health Care Alternative Dispute Resolution Office (“HCADRO”) in which a person alleging medical malpractice can file a claim and, additionally, establishes the procedure governing the arbitration process

Pevia v. Moyer

District Court, D. Maryland · Mar 4, 2020

Qualified Immunity Defendants contend that they are protected from suit by qualified immunity. Their qualified immunity defense is unavailing at this juncture. … Qualified immunity is often determined at the summary judgment stage of litigation. See Wilson v. Kittoe, 337 F.3d 392, 397 (4th Cir. 2003).

Bey

District Court, D. Maryland · Nov 12, 2025

In explaining its rationale for judicial immunity, the Court stated: Few doctrines were more solidly established at common law than the immunity of judges from liability for damages for acts committed … Accepting filings is clearly within the jurisdiction of the Clerk of Court, and the Clerk of Court must be able to accept filings in order for cases to be properly processed.

Kerrigan v. Magnum Entertainment, Inc.

804 F. Supp. 733 · District Court, D. Maryland · Aug 31, 1992

Williamson, 38 F.E.P. at 1336. 5 In the second of the cases, the Maryland Court of Appeals determined that art. 49B should not be construed to immunize small employers from suit. … established public policy of this State.

McCullough v. Anne Arundel County, Maryland

District Court, D. Maryland · Feb 20, 2020

The LGTCA provides, in relevant part, that “[a] local government may not assert governmental or sovereign immunity fo avoid the duty to defend or indemnify an employee established in this subsection.” Md. … “The Fourth Circuit has held that pretrial detainees have a clearly established right to immediate medical care when they are visibly injured and in pain.” Xrei/, 2018 WL 6523883, at *11 (citing Ervin v.

Schiff v. Clark-Edwards

District Court, D. Maryland · Apr 11, 2023

The Court explained the rationale for judicial immunity, id. at 553-54: Few doctrines were more solidly established at common law than the immunity of judges from liability for damages for acts committed within … The Supreme Court has “distinguished between advocative functions,” which enjoy absolute immunity, and investigative or administrative functions, which are entitled only to qualified immunity.

Aggarao v. Mitsui O.S.K. Lines, Ltd.

741 F. Supp. 2d 733 · District Court, D. Maryland · Sep 30, 2010

The Fourth Circuit has not established a rule for when courts should compel arbitration pursuant to the Convention. … Porter Bros., Inc., 276 Md. 1 , 344 A.2d 65, 70 (1975). 6 “A novation is never presumed; the party asserting it must establish clearly and satisfactorily that there was an intention, concurred in by all the parties, that

Lightfoot v. Board of Trustees of Prince George's Community College

457 F. Supp. 135 · District Court, D. Maryland · Jul 28, 1978

Initially the vote of the Committee on plaintiff’s qualifications was 2 votes for qualified (1 black member, and 1 white member) and 3 votes not qualified (2 black members and 1 white member). Adm. 2(q). Mr. … On the other hand, when the job clearly requires a high degree of skill and the economic and human risks involved in hiring an unqualified applicant are great, the employer bears a correspondingly lighter burden to show that

Reiling v. Lacy

93 F. Supp. 462 · District Court, D. Maryland · Jul 11, 1950

Whitman College, 222 U.S. 334 , 32 S.Ct. 147 , 56 L.Ed. 225 , upon which plaintiff relies, is clearly distinguishable on its facts. … Harvey, 296 U.S. 404 , 56 S.Ct. 252 , 80 L.Ed. 299 , 102 A.L.R. 54 , the facts in which we believe are clearly distinguishable from those before us, we deem it appropriate to analyze that decision.

Martin v. Postmaster General

District Court, D. Maryland · Aug 27, 2020

Further, the USPS is immune from suit for the loss, miscarriage, or negligent transmission of letters or postal matter. … Here, Plaintiff was denied a default judgment because he failed to establish he had served his complaint on the Defendant.

Brooks v. United States

166 F. Supp. 2d 366 · District Court, D. Maryland · Apr 10, 2001

Brooks has not established an evidentiary dispute warranting a Fatico hearing. 2. … Teague, 489 U.S. at 311-14 , 109 S.Ct. 1060 . *372 Because the first exception clearly does not apply in this case, the sole question before the court is whether Apprendi qualifies under the second Teague exception.

Rouse v. Fader

District Court, D. Maryland · Nov 26, 2024

This includes both the absolute immunities associated with certain public roles, like that of a prosecutor in their capacity as advocate, as well as the qualified immunity that shields other government officials. … And while some of this discrepancy may be the result of judges and litigants who “discuss immunity defenses without clearly articulating to whom and in which capacity those defenses apply,” Turner v.

GK Parandhamaia, et al. v. Smith Farm Holdings, LLC, et al.

District Court, D. Maryland · Feb 25, 2026

, since the proposed amendments would have also been dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6) on sovereign immunity grounds). … to the Fourth 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.

Sulton v. Baltimore County

District Court, D. Maryland · Mar 12, 2021

To the extent it eventually proves necessary for Plaintiffs to rely on subsequent incidents to establish a “custom,” they will have an uphill battle in establishing that the occurrence of this particular situation … Once those three conditions are met, “the public official enjoys a qualified immunity.” Thomas, 113 Md. App. at 452.

Vodi

District Court, D. Maryland · Mar 31, 2026

“It is well established that the University is considered to be an arm of the State Government for the purposes of the sovereign immunity doctrine.” Magnetti, 402 Md. at 557; see also Md. … Rose, 192 F.3d 462, 472 (4th Cir. 1999) (collecting cases holding “that Title VII does not provide a remedy against individual defendants who do not qualify as ‘employers’”); Birkbeck v.

Medlock v. Rumsfeld

336 F. Supp. 2d 452 · District Court, D. Maryland · Apr 4, 2003

C, D, they do not begin to establish that Plaintiff was more qualified for the Band 2 promotion than the four candidates who were selected. … This affidavit is clearly overdue.

Venugopal v. Shire Laboratories

334 F. Supp. 2d 835 · District Court, D. Maryland · Aug 26, 2004

Ginski was more qualified than Venugopal. … “In a failure to promote case, the plaintiff must establish that she was the better qualified candidate for the position sought.” Evans, 80 F.3d at 960 (citing Gairola v. Virginia Dept. of Gen.

Moise v. McAllister

District Court, D. Maryland · Sep 22, 2022

6); (3) Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity (id. at 9); and (4) Moise has failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. … immunity, is not necessary.