Case law

Ajenifuja v. Owusu

District Court, D. Maryland · Mar 25, 2024

Qualified Immunity Defendants argue in the alternative that Mr. Owusu and Ms. … Grigsby are entitled to qualified immunity for damages as to Counts I and II. (ECF No. 16-2, at 13).

Claiborne v. Cahalen

636 F. Supp. 1271 · District Court, D. Maryland · May 28, 1986

Cahalen Under Maryland law, officer Cahalen is entitled to qualified immunity for discretionary acts performed in the course of his duty. Brewer v. Mele, 267 Md. 437 , 298 A.2d 156 (1972). … In order to overcome Cahalen’s qualified immunity, plaintiff must make an affirmative showing of actual malice on the part of Cahalen. Davis v. Muse, 51 Md.App. 93 , 441 A.2d 1089 (1982).

Collis v. United States

498 F. Supp. 2d 764 · District Court, D. Maryland · Jul 19, 2007

The second motion was filed by Defendants Simms and Smith, and seeks dismissal because of absolute, or in the alternative, qualified immunity. See Paper No. 18. … Because the Court concludes that AUSA Simms is entitled to absolute immunity, and SA Smith is entitled to absolute immunity, or in the alternative, qualified immunity, the Court will, by separate order, grant the Defendants

Grossman v. McKay

384 F. Supp. 99 · District Court, D. Maryland · Nov 19, 1974

This clearly is not the intent of the doctrine. … As has been clearly demonstrated, her duties emanate from express congressional and administrative mandates.

Griffith v. Truette

866 F. Supp. 254 · District Court, D. Maryland · Oct 24, 1994

Moreover, at least as to plaintiffs federal constitutional claim, McKendrick is entitled to the defense of qualified immunity. See, e.g. Harlow v. … Rather, it is a civil action in which defendants are entitled to the defense of qualified immunity unless they violated one of the Griffith’s clearly established constitutional rights.

Marryshow v. Town of Bladensburg

139 F.R.D. 318 · District Court, D. Maryland · Oct 31, 1991

The active Defendants may present, at trial, the defense of qualified immunity. See Anderson v. … Creighton, 483 U.S. 635, 638 , 107 S.Ct. 3034, 3038 , 97 L.Ed.2d 523 (1987) (government official performing discretionary function shielded from civil liability by qualified immunity where actions do not violate clearly established

United States v. Mandel

415 F. Supp. 1025 · District Court, D. Maryland · May 4, 1976

Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232 , 94 S.Ct. 1683 , 40 L.Ed.2d 90 (1974) (qualified immunity for Governor and executive officers of State); Wood v. … The language in Eslinger does not clearly say otherwise.

Rock for Life-Umbc v. Hrabowski

643 F. Supp. 2d 729 · District Court, D. Maryland · Jul 8, 2009

“Qualified immunity shields government officials performing discretionary functions from personal-capacity liability for civil damages under § 1983, ‘insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … Accordingly, Defendants Schaefer and Williams are also entitled to qualified immunity. B.

Hejirika v. Maryland Division of Correction

264 F. Supp. 2d 341 · District Court, D. Maryland · May 22, 2003

See Md.Code Ann., State Gov’t § 12-104 (waiving state immunity for tort actions in state court); id. § 12-201 (waiving state immunity for contract actions in state court). … If plaintiffs amend their complaint to clearly assert a claim for a hostile work envi-roment under § 1983, the MTC/MDOC and the individuals in their official capacities would be entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity.

Raffety v. Prince George's County

423 F. Supp. 1045 · District Court, D. Maryland · Nov 1, 1976

“Common-law tradition, recognized in our prior decisions, and strong public-policy reasons also lead to a construction of § 1983 extending a qualified good-faith immunity to school board members from liability for damages … Appellees did assert 28 U.S.C. § 1331 as an alternative ground of jurisdiction, but I agree with the Court’s conclusion that existence of the requisite amount in controversy is not, on this record, clearly established.

Golden v. State Board of Law Examiners

452 F. Supp. 1082 · District Court, D. Maryland · Mar 30, 1978

The State clearly has a legitimate interest in this area and may adopt reasonable requirements to further that interest. … Privileges and Immunities The article IV privileges and immunities clause (U.S.Const. art.

Santos v. Frederick Cnty. Bd. of Com'rs

346 F. Supp. 3d 785 · District Court, D. Maryland · Sep 27, 2018

The Circuit also held that qualified immunity barred claims against the Deputies and the Sheriff in their individual capacities. … These arguments are merely attempts to apply qualified immunity to municipal claims.

Farmer v. Kavanagh

494 F. Supp. 2d 345 · District Court, D. Maryland · Jul 19, 2007

“Clearly established” for purposes of qualified immunity analysis means that the “ ‘contours of the right must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates that right.’ … Farmer has established the deprivation of a constitutional right. This right, however, was not clearly established at the time of her transfer.

Jackson v. Pena

28 F. Supp. 3d 423 · District Court, D. Maryland · Jun 19, 2014

immunity. … Moreover, he argues that the Officers are not entitled to qualified immunity because “they were clearly utilizing deadly force” and “Plaintiff had the right not to be shot.”

2BD ASSOCIATES v. Queen Anne's County Com'rs

896 F. Supp. 528 · District Court, D. Maryland · Mar 30, 1995

Redistricting involves the establishment of the electoral structure by which the legislative body becomes duly constituted". Id. at 304-05. … , supra at 1278 ; Bruce, supra at 276-77 n. 2, although as pointed out by Judge Sprouse, Bruce, supra at 276 , cases so seeming to indicate may not have involved absolute, as opposed to exceptions for qualified, immunity.

Kennedy v. Widdowson

804 F. Supp. 737 · District Court, D. Maryland · Sep 3, 1992

Recently, the Fourth Circuit stated that, "the test of qualified immunity for police officers sued under [section] 1983 is whether in performing discretionary functions, they have engaged in conduct that violates 'clearly … The Court did not, however, foreclose the possibility that under certain circumstances a private defendant could be entitled to an affirmative defense based on qualified immunity. 5 .

Vathekan v. Prince George's County

935 F. Supp. 699 · District Court, D. Maryland · Aug 22, 1996

The case was so analyzed by the Magistrate Judge and the undersigned in ruling on motions for summary judgment under the notion of qualified good faith immunity. … Thus, in that there was no violation of any clearly established constitutional right by Simms, he is entitled to early summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds, Wagner v.

Highfield Water Co. v. Public Service Commission

488 F. Supp. 1176 · District Court, D. Maryland · May 20, 1980

Two recent Supreme Court cases have discussed the appropriate standard for evaluating an immunity defense: in varying scope, a qualified immunity is available to officers of the executive branch of government, the variation … A compensatory award will be appropriate only if the school board member has acted with such an impermissible motivation or such disregard of the student’s clearly established constitutional rights that his action cannot

Simon v. Union Hospital of Cecil County, Inc.

15 F. Supp. 2d 787 · District Court, D. Maryland · Jun 26, 1998

The Health Care Quality Improvement Act of 1986 (the “Act”), 42 U.S.C. § 11101 , et seq., establishes a national reporting system and provides immunity from damages for persons participating in professional review activities … Given that Defendants did plead the affirmative defense of immunity under Maryland law, which implicates the same issues as the qualified privilege defense — good faith and malice — Simon cannot argue that he is prejudiced

Schmidt v. Town of Cheverly

212 F. Supp. 3d 573 · District Court, D. Maryland · Aug 30, 2016

However, at least one federal court has found that it still does not qualify. See Brodzik v. … Even assuming that Plaintiff could establish a prima facie case of wrongful discharge, both of these claims are barred by governmental immunity.