Case law

CIA. Atlantica Pacifica, S. A. v. Humble Oil & Refining Co.

274 F. Supp. 884 · District Court, D. Maryland · Aug 31, 1967

attempting to establish any one of those immunities, the ship has the burden of proof. … To avail itself of certain of the immunities provided in section 4. the ship would not only have to establish that the loss was occasioned by the cause to which the immunity relates but would additionally be required to establish

Hudson v. Goodlander

494 F. Supp. 890 · District Court, D. Maryland · Jul 29, 1980

Is Plaintiff Entitled to Damages As prison officials, the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity on the damage claim. … However, “the immunity defense would be unavailing ... if the constitutional right allegedly infringed by them was clearly established at the time of their challenged conduct, if they knew or should have known of that right

Proctor v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.

289 F. Supp. 3d 676 · District Court, D. Maryland · Jan 25, 2018

Although the court's "inquiry is dependent on an analysis of state law," state law cannot resolve the issue by "simply labeling as a state official an official who clearly makes county policy." … basis of quasi-judicial immunity, sua sponte .

Carroll v. Town of University Park

12 F. Supp. 2d 475 · District Court, D. Maryland · Aug 11, 1997

The Defendants argue that Werge and Bacon are both protected by qualified immunity. … Plaintiffs Motion to Strike Section of Defendants’ Reply on Qualified Immunity Carroll filed a Motion to Strike a Section of Defendants’ Reply Memorandum which addressed qualified immunity.

Ensko v. Howard County, Md.

423 F. Supp. 2d 502 · District Court, D. Maryland · Mar 22, 2006

Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, government officials performing discretionary functions “generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … If true, such conduct violated a clearly established statutory right; there is a genuine issue whether Livesay is entitled to qualified immunity.

Colon v. United States

320 F. Supp. 3d 733 · District Court, D. Maryland · Mar 13, 2018

Wollenburg also included Kassop and Taylor as fact witnesses in those hearings, on the grounds that Kassop was qualified to testify as a physician and Taylor was qualified to testify as to Colon's mental health. … In maintaining, operating, and controlling the aircraft those individuals were also clearly engaged in a "military act." Finally, in Bailey v.

Fitchette v. Collins

402 F. Supp. 147 · District Court, D. Maryland · Oct 13, 1975

Hence, the Court adopted a qualified immunity for school board officials: (I)n the specific context of school discipline, we hold that a school board member is not immune from liability for damages under § 1983 if he knew … Rather, damages will be appropriate only if the school board member has acted with such an impermissible motivation or with such disregard of the student’s clearly established constitutional rights that his action cannot

Davenport v. Maryland

38 F. Supp. 3d 679 · District Court, D. Maryland · Aug 6, 2014

She further alleges “other officers, who were less qualified and had tested lower than Plaintiff, received letters for oral interviews.” (Id.). … Servs. for City of Balt., 901 F.2d 387, 397 (4th Cir.1990) (“The waiver of sovereign immunity in the Maryland Torts Claims Act clearly limits the state’s waiver of immunity to actions brought in the Maryland state courts.

Gray v. Maryland

228 F. Supp. 2d 628 · District Court, D. Maryland · Sep 18, 2002

Qualified Immunity for § 1983 Claims In their motions, both the Joint Movants and Stinnett argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity because Gray has failed to allege a constitutional violation. … When evaluating a claim of qualified immunity, the court must identify the specific constitutional right allegedly violated, and then determine whether that right was “clearly established,” and whether a reasonable person

Ladnier v. Murray

572 F. Supp. 544 · District Court, D. Maryland · Sep 27, 1983

Strickland, 420 U.S. 308 , 95 S.Ct. 992 , 43 L.Ed.2d 214 (1975) for the proposition that under the defense of qualified immunity a police officer is immune from damages in § 1983 cases unless he: knew or reasonably should … Third, the aspect of the defense of qualified immunity that involves the issue of whether or not a governmental officer acted with malice was *548 abandoned by the Supreme Court in Harlow v.

Bosse v. Baltimore County

692 F. Supp. 2d 574 · District Court, D. Maryland · Mar 10, 2010

does not make clear that their actions violated Plaintiffs clearly-established First Amendment rights. … speech is ‘clearly established,’ ” id. at 44.

Arey v. Robinson

819 F. Supp. 478 · District Court, D. Maryland · Jul 8, 1992

“If there exists a ‘legitimate question’ as to whether particular conduct violates a particular right then the right is *489 not clearly established and qualified immunity applies.” Id. … I would find that the defendants are entitled to the defense of qualified immunity in this case. The plaintiff claims that his right to privacy is clearly established by the Hudson case. (Plaintiffs Post-Evid. Mem.).

Royster v. Gahler

154 F. Supp. 3d 206 · District Court, D. Maryland · Dec 31, 2015

Moreover, plaintiffs notice to the EEOC is clearly not sufficient to constitute substantial compliance, as the EEOC is not associated with the State in any way. … abrogation of sovereign immunity.

Biggs v. Board of Education of Cecil County

229 F. Supp. 2d 437 · District Court, D. Maryland · Mar 6, 2002

Under the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals’ decision in Cash , Defendant Board *444 of Education may establish that it is a state agency entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity in one of two ways: (i) if the judgment against … The county boards must obtain the state’s approval regarding the establishment of schools, acquisition or disposition of property, construction or renovation of buildings, and curriculum.

Benford v. American Broadcasting Co., Inc.

649 F. Supp. 9 · District Court, D. Maryland · May 14, 1986

Quite clearly, the defendants’ intentions are in dispute, precluding summary judgment. See Phoenix Savings & Loan v. … The Congressional defendants have recently appealed the Court's April 21, 1986 ruling on the issue of qualified immunity and have not responded to the motion. 3 . 18 U.S.C. § 2511 et seq. 4 . S.Rep.

Davis v. Thompson

367 F. Supp. 2d 792 · District Court, D. Maryland · Mar 24, 2005

While the CSRA may not specifically address the FMLA, that does not amount to an implied waiver of sovereign immunity. … To establish a prima facie case under the Rehabilitation Act, a plaintiff must demonstrate that he (1) is a “disabled” individual; (2) is “otherwise qualified” for the position; and (3) was removed from his position as a

Farmer v. Ramsay

41 F. Supp. 2d 587 · District Court, D. Maryland · Mar 10, 1999

Farmer has clearly met the two requirements to state a claim under Title VI. … established law” (compl. at ¶ 50).

Hector v. Weglein

558 F. Supp. 194 · District Court, D. Maryland · Sep 1, 1982

qualifiedly immune. … If it be some affirmative showing of ill will, improper motivation, or evil purpose, the undisputed facts might well reveal its total absence prior to trial and permit the assertion of the qualified immunity.

Little v. Federal Bureau of Investigation

793 F. Supp. 652 · District Court, D. Maryland · Jul 7, 1992

Fourth and finally, because it is clear as a matter of law from the second amended complaint that the individual defendants’ conduct could not have been said to violate clearly established law, they are obviously entitled … to qualified immunity as a matter of law.

Dennard v. Towson University

62 F. Supp. 3d 446 · District Court, D. Maryland · Oct 16, 2014

Common law sovereign immunity “predated” adoption of the Eleventh Amendment, which “confirmed, rather than established, sovereign immunity as a constitutional principle.” Stewart v. N. … Accordingly, the Maryland Court of Appeals adopted a two-part test to determine whether sovereign immunity applies in a specific case: (1) does the entity asserting sovereign immunity qualify, and (2) has the Legislature