Case law

Jet Line Services, Inc. v. M/V Marsa El Hariga

462 F. Supp. 1165 · District Court, D. Maryland · Nov 27, 1978

Such cases, however, are clearly recognized to be “rare.” … The requirements of Section 1605 are precisely and clearly written so as. to give effect to the restrictive theory of sovereign immunity.

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

Muntjan v. Waltemeyer

166 F. Supp. 2d 424 · District Court, D. Maryland · Oct 9, 2001

immunity because a reasonable officer could have believed that their conduct was lawful in light of clearly established law and the information they possessed. … Muntjan’s apartment is protected by qualified immunity. Additionally, Mr. Muntjan has presented no evidence that his residence was “ransacked” on the evening of March 4.

Greenan v. Board of Educ. of Worcester County

783 F. Supp. 2d 782 · District Court, D. Maryland · Mar 8, 2011

Sovereign immunity protects government officials sued in their individual capacities “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would know.” … If Kendrick and Marx did so, as the Complaint alleges, they are not entitled to qualified immunity. Dr. Andes is a closer case.

Rosenfeld v. Montgomery County Public Schools

41 F. Supp. 2d 581 · District Court, D. Maryland · Mar 4, 1999

The plaintiff bears the burden of establishing these elements. See id. 1. … Eleventh Amendment Immunity 1.

Lanford v. Prince George's County, MD

199 F. Supp. 2d 297 · District Court, D. Maryland · Apr 26, 2002

See Id. at 635, 785 A.2d 726 (“[U]nless the public official’s governmental employer itself has immunity from an independent source, the public official’s qualified immunity does not extend to the employer, and the employer … Under Maryland law, “[o]nce it is established that the individual is a public official and the tort was committed while performing a duty which involves the exercise of discretion, a qualified immunity attaches; namely, in

Thompson v. Anderson

447 F. Supp. 584 · District Court, D. Maryland · Dec 27, 1977

A compensatory award will be appropriate only if the school board member has acted with such an impermissible motivation or with such disregard of the *592 student’s clearly established constitutional rights that his action … The holding that school officials are entitled to qualified immunity proceeded as an extension and application of Tenney v. Brandhove, 341 U.S. 367 , [ 71 S.Ct. 783 , 95 L.Ed. 1019 ] (1951); Pierson v.

Korotki v. Goughan

597 F. Supp. 1365 · District Court, D. Maryland · Sep 28, 1984

QUALIFIED “GOOD FAITH” IMMUNITY OF DEFENDANTS GOUGHAN AND CARTWRIGHT In post-trial motions, defendants have further argued that defendants Goughan and Cartwright are entitled to qualified good faith immunity under the principles … Accordingly, defendant Goughan’s and defendant Cartwright’s post-trial motions for relief on grounds of qualified immunity are denied. VI.

Smith v. Bernier

701 F. Supp. 1171 · District Court, D. Maryland · Oct 27, 1988

In fact, the statutes clearly limit the state’s waiver of immunity solely to actions brought in the Maryland state courts. … Such persons are clearly subject to abuses of the government’s significant power over them.

White v. Maryland Transportation Authority

151 F. Supp. 2d 651 · District Court, D. Maryland · Jun 1, 2001

White does not clearly testify on this record. Opp’n Ex. A at 29; Opp’n Ex. B at ¶ 11. … Under Maryland law, a plaintiff may not defeat summary judgment on the issue of qualified immunity simply by alleging malice.

International Refugee Organization v. Republic Steamship Corp.

92 F. Supp. 674 · District Court, D. Maryland · Jul 8, 1950

This has been clearly-announced by the Supreme Court in numerous cases and is now firmly established. In Gully v. … Today, even more clearly than in the past, ‘the federal nature of the right to be established is decisive — not the source of the authority to establish it.’ Id.” (Emphasis supplied). Later in General Committee v.

Innes v. Board of Regents of the University System

29 F. Supp. 3d 566 · District Court, D. Maryland · Jul 1, 2014

“In general, to establish a continuing violation the plaintiff must establish that the unconstitutional or illegal act was a ... fixed and continuing practice.” Nat’l Adver. Co. v. … As he noted, these cases concern sovereign immunity. Much like the Board in Jean , the Board of Regents here has not claimed sovereign or Eleventh Amendment immunity.

Mora v. City of Gaithersburg

462 F. Supp. 2d 675 · District Court, D. Maryland · Sep 29, 2006

Further, the City’s interpretation of § 5-103 of the Public Safety Article is at odds with the provisions establishing who is legally qualified to own and possess firearms. … The City has simply grafted its own qualifications on the list of qualifications established by and made exclusive by State law.

Cepada v. BOARD OF EDUC. OF BALTIMORE COUNTY

814 F. Supp. 2d 500 · District Court, D. Maryland · Apr 28, 2011

Failure to Promote To establish a prima facie failure to promote claim under Title VII or § 1981, the plaintiff must show that he: (1) is a member of a protected class; (2) applied for an open position; (3) was qualified; … Failure to Promote To establish a prima facie ADEA failure to promote claim, the plaintiff must show that: (1) he is at least 40; (2) he applied for an open position; (3) he was rejected even though qualified; and (4) the

Love

District Court, D. Maryland · Dec 15, 2025

“[O]ff[icials] are entitled to qualified immunity under § 1983 unless (1) they violated a federal statutory or constitutional right, and (2) the unlawfulness of their conduct was ‘clearly established at the time.’” … Defendant McAdams urges that he is entitled to qualified immunity because “the constitutional question presented in this case was not clearly established at the time of [Plaintiff’s] termination.”

Doe v. Salisbury University

107 F. Supp. 3d 481 · District Court, D. Maryland · Jun 2, 2015

Qualified immunity provides immunity from suit, not merely a defense to *491 liability. Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 237 , 129 S.Ct. 808 , 172 L.Ed.2d 565 (2009). … Qualified immunity turns on two inquiries: (1) “whether the facts that a plaintiff has alleged ... or shown ... make out a violation of a constitutional right,” -and (2) “whether the right at issue was ‘clearly established

Paice, LLC v. Hyundai Motor Co.

302 F.R.D. 128 · District Court, D. Maryland · Jul 11, 2014

The qualified immunity covering documents or other tangible things falling within the classification of fact work-produet “is little more than an ‘anti-freeloader’ rule designed to prohibit one adverse party from riding to … Because the Court finds that the subject documents qualify as opinion work product (or fact work-product unavailable due to the lack of substantial need and hardship), and therefore, warrant immunity from disclosure, the

Barlow v. Marriott Corp.

328 F. Supp. 624 · District Court, D. Maryland · Jun 30, 1971

The only encouragement which the Congress held out with regard to the establishment of and compliance with such standards was to make available in connection with plans qualifying under the statute tax deductions not available … under section 401(a), and do not establish rights independently of constitutional rights, which employee-beneficiaries can enforce against those who fail so to continue a profit-sharing plan which has been deemed qualified

Donlan v. Smith

662 F. Supp. 352 · District Court, D. Maryland · Sep 17, 1986

Since defendant Smith followed duly established court procedures, he is clearly entitled to qualified immunity in a suit brought against him under § 1983, pursuant to standards established by the Supreme Court in Harlow v … Accordingly, even if, in any event, a valid § 1983 claim could be asserted against defendant Smith, he would possess a qualified immunity which would bar any recovery of damages by plaintiff.

Kline v. State of Maryland Maryland Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services

District Court, D. Maryland · Dec 18, 2020

A court faced with such a claim is required to make a preliminary determination whether the defendant official is entitled to qualified immunity. … was clearly established at the time the violation occurred[.]”