Case law

Rivero v. Montgomery County

259 F. Supp. 3d 334 · District Court, D. Maryland · May 3, 2017

Qualified Immunity The County Defendants argue that qualified immunity shields Officer Kettering from liability. Cty. Mem. 10-12. … As Smith notes, a finding that qualified immunity .does not shield an officer from liability also establishes that the officer has acted with reckless disregard for others’ rights. See id. at 55 , 103 S.Ct. 1625 .

Nero v. Baltimore County, MD

512 F. Supp. 2d 407 · District Court, D. Maryland · Sep 27, 2007

immunity. … matter of law that they are entitled to qualified immunity.

Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Financial Corp.

280 F. Supp. 3d 691 · District Court, D. Maryland · Nov 30, 2017

Thus, even if this litigation were objectively baseless — which it clearly is not — Capital One cannot establish that IV intended to interfere “with" the business relationships of a competitor.” … At trial, the court found that Ritter “was not qualified for tenure” (“tenure issue”) and that the only valid comparator she identified “was clearly more qualified” than she (“comparator issue”). Id. at 989-90 .

Queen v. Prince George's County

188 F. Supp. 3d 535 · District Court, D. Maryland · May 26, 2016

As a result, he also could not establish that he was entitled to qualified immunity on the federal claim. See Streater, 565 Fed.Appx. at 210 . Consequently, summary judgment is not appropriate on' these claims. … To determine the availability of qualified immunity, I take the facts alleged “ ‘in the light most favorable to the party asserting the injury.’ ” Meyers v.

McRae v. Stewart

District Court, D. Maryland · Apr 2, 2020

While Plaintiff disputes whether these defendants are entitled to the absolute immunity they assert in defense of his lawsuit, that “dispute” is inconsequential. … Specifically, when a complaint filed by a prisoner is dismissed in its entirety it qualifies as a “strike” under the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). See Blakely v.

Gross v. Pomerleau

465 F. Supp. 1167 · District Court, D. Maryland · Feb 22, 1979

A remaining issue, then, is whether the expansion of liability under Monell is in any way qualified by the presence of municipal immunity. … motivation or with such disregard of the student’s clearly established constitutional rights that his action cannot reasonably be characterized as being in good faith. 420 U.S. at 322 , 95 S.Ct. at 1001.

Hooper v. Sachs

618 F. Supp. 963 · District Court, D. Maryland · Sep 16, 1985

The second, qualified immunity, is applicable “insofar as [the challenged] conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. … The right to be free of illegal searches and seizures by private citizens acting as agents of the state is a clearly established one. The issue of absolute immunity is not so easily resolved.

Waybright Ex Rel. Waybright v. Frederick County Maryland Department of Fire & Rescue Services

475 F. Supp. 2d 542 · District Court, D. Maryland · Mar 1, 2007

Qualified Immunity. Coombe asserts the defense of qualified immunity with respect to Plaintiffs’ federal constitutional claims. … Assuming arguendo that Officer Coombe’s actions violated Waybright’s substantive due process rights, this Court would consider the second step of the qualified immunity analysis, i.e., were those rights "clearly established

Lanier-Finn v. Department of the Army

963 F. Supp. 2d 476 · District Court, D. Maryland · Aug 26, 2013

Adopting such an approach would clearly bar Plaintiffs claims in this case. However, the facts in Soble are distinguishable. … Plaintiffs claims clearly would be barred under the Green approach.

Chin v. City of Baltimore

241 F. Supp. 2d 546 · District Court, D. Maryland · Jan 22, 2003

Further, Officer Wilhelm's arguments that he is entitled to qualified immunity must be rejected at this stage. … Taking the facts in the complaint as true, Officer Wilhelm could not have reasonably believed that his actions did not violate the plaintiffs' clearly established rights.

Spencer v. Hendersen-Webb, Inc.

81 F. Supp. 2d 582 · District Court, D. Maryland · Dec 16, 1999

FCRA provides qualified immunity from state law defamation claims to those who furnish information to a consumer reporting agency. … The Court will grant Defendants’ Motion as to the 1998 reporting of Spencer’s debt because they are entitled to the qualified immunity provided by FCRA.

Jackson v. United States

77 F. Supp. 2d 709 · District Court, D. Maryland · Dec 22, 1999

The United States does not dispute that the Customs officers qualify as "law enforcement officers” for the purposes of the FTCA. … Although the Court does not address the issue here, the Customs officers are entitled to assert qualified immunity on Jackson's FTCA claims. See Norton v. United States, 581 F.2d 390 (4th Cir.1978).

Williams v. Anderson

753 F. Supp. 1306 · District Court, D. Maryland · Dec 26, 1990

not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person should have known. … Moreover, at the time those alleged violations occurred, it was clearly established that “the relationship of love and duty in a recognized family unit is an interest in liberty entitled to constitutional protection.”

Judicial Watch, Inc. v. Rossotti

217 F. Supp. 2d 618 · District Court, D. Maryland · Mar 27, 2002

Government officials performing discretionary functions are entitled to qualified immunity to the extent that “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … Qualified immunity is “an immunity from suit rather than a mere defense to liability.” Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 526 , 105 S.Ct. 2806 , 86 L.Ed.2d 411 (1985).

Blum v. Campbell

355 F. Supp. 1220 · District Court, D. Maryland · Jul 12, 1972

I have discussed the doctrine of governmental immunity at great length with my client who, understandably, finds it difficult to accept that most of the *1226 Defendants are in many respects immunized regardless of the wrongs … From the “deposition,” it quite clearly appears that this statement was made while the defendant Campbell was acting as Receiver pursuant to an Order of this Court.

Oken v. Nuth

30 F. Supp. 2d 877 · District Court, D. Maryland · Dec 18, 1998

The decision in Ashmus clearly buttressed Oken’s argument that the Eleventh Amendment immunity argument presented a “substantial question” for stay purposes and, moreover, given the split in circuits over the question, that … Since Maryland has adopted no rule of court or statute and since the State Office of Public Defender has established and follows no competency standards in these cases, 3 the State fails to qualify for the benefits of Chapter

Starr Indemnity & Liability Company v. United States

District Court, D. Maryland · Sep 11, 2019

Goetz, 886 F.2d 60, 64-65 (4th Cir, 1989) (holding that search warrant affidavits are judicial records to which the public has a common law qualified right of access). … interpreting a waiver of sovereign immunity, the court “must interpret any remaining ambiguity in the scope of CAFRA’s re-waiver of sovereign immunity in favor of the United States,” id.

Fersner v. PRINCE GEORGE'S COUNTY, MD

138 F. Supp. 2d 685 · District Court, D. Maryland · Apr 11, 2001

, they are entitled to the benefit of the qualified immunity defense long recognized under settled Supreme Court and Fourth Circuit precedent. … But this is exactly the point of the qualified immunity defense.

Paulone v. City of Frederick

718 F. Supp. 2d 626 · District Court, D. Maryland · Feb 17, 2010

To establish a violation of either statute, 20 Paulone must show that: (1) she is a qualified individual with a disability, (2) she was discriminated against, excluded from participation in, or denied the benefits of a public … Thus, Jenkins's liability will be analyzed under the MTCA framework, which confers qualified immunity on state officials. See Md.Code Ann., State Gov’t § 12-101 (a)(6) (West 2009); Barbre v.

Jackson v. Bostick

760 F. Supp. 524 · District Court, D. Maryland · Jan 29, 1991

immunity turns upon whether the constitutional right which he violated was “clearly established” at the time of the violation. … Three facts convincingly establish that the substantive due process right which I have articulated has not heretofore been a clearly established one.