Case law

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[.]”

Campbell v. Wexford Health Sources, Inc.

District Court, D. Maryland · Sep 25, 2020

Miller ordered lab tests to rule out other possible causes such as diabetes and Sjogren’s syndrome, an immune system disorder. (Id. at 33, 36). … Farnham, 394 F.3d 469, 481–82 (7th Cir. 2005) (denying qualified immunity to prison officials who denied inmates toothpaste for three and a half weeks); Chance v.

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

Alston v. Robinson

791 F. Supp. 569 · District Court, D. Maryland · Mar 31, 1992

from civil damages under the doctrine of qualified immunity enunciated in Harlow v. … the plaintiffs’ work release statuses did not violate the plaintiffs’ constitutional rights “in light of clearly established law.”

United Prison Equipment Co. v. Board of County Commissioners

907 F. Supp. 908 · District Court, D. Maryland · Nov 15, 1995

. § 5-403(d), (e), to assert whatever common law immunity is available. … . § 5-401 et seq., waives defendant's immunity in this case. But, ‘‘[t]he LGTCA, by its own terms, contains no specific waiver of governmental immunity when a governmental entity is sued in its own capacity....

Khan v. State of Md.

903 F. Supp. 881 · District Court, D. Maryland · Sep 29, 1995

Thus, the burden clearly shifts to MVA to articulate legitimate nondiscriminatory reasons for Khan’s non-selection. … To establish a prima facie case of disparate impact, Khan must show (1) that there is an underrepresentation of the qualified blacks promoted to the positions at issue, and (2) that specific elements of MVA's promotion criteria

Tyner v. Dagilas

District Court, D. Maryland · Aug 21, 2024

Accordingly, Tyner had no clearly established right to the information he claims Dagilas denied him. Dagilas has qualified immunity to his claim. 3. … In the absence of any authority clearly establishing the right at issue, the defendants have qualified immunity to this claim.

Totaro v. Lyons

498 F. Supp. 621 · District Court, D. Maryland · Sep 19, 1980

Other Immunities A qualified immunity from liability is the general rule for executive officials charged with constitutional violations. … Whether or not they would be entitled to a qualified immunity cannot be decided on the basis of the present record.

Kelly v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

468 F. Supp. 417 · District Court, D. Maryland · Apr 9, 1979

Economou, 438 U.S. 478 , 98 S.Ct. 2894 , 57 L.Ed.2d 895 (1978), and other cases establishing absolute or qualified immunity for federal officials, the two individual defendants herein are immune from any claims for damages … It is not necessary herein to decide any of those constitutional, liberty-property or immunity issues (though defendants certainly have stated strong positions in connection therewith) in view of the Congress’ failure to

Dawson v. Prince George's County

896 F. Supp. 537 · District Court, D. Maryland · Sep 1, 1995

The Court has broad discretion in deciding whether to bifurcate claims for trial and the exercise of that discretion will be set aside only if clearly abused. Fed.R.Civ.P. 42(b); Dixon v. … The prejudicial effect of such evidence would clearly outweigh its probative value. F.R.Evid. 404(a).

Brooks

District Court, D. Maryland · Apr 30, 2026

“The defense of qualified immunity shields public officials from civil liability unless they violated a ‘statutory or constitutional right that was clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct.’” … To defeat qualified immunity, the record must show that (1) McKimmie violated Brooks’s constitutional right and (2) that right was “clearly established” when the violation occurred. Id.

A HELPING HAND, LLC v. Baltimore County, Md.

295 F. Supp. 2d 585 · District Court, D. Maryland · Dec 17, 2003

See 42 U.S.C. § 12132 (prohibiting discrimination by a public entity against a “qualified individual with a disability”); id. § 12203(b) (prohibiting interference with rights protected by the ADA). … As for the cited Maryland provisions, the privileges they establish are not applicable here because this lawsuit is governed by federal, rather than state, law. See Fed.R.Evid. 501.

O'Connell v. Montgomery County

923 F. Supp. 761 · District Court, D. Maryland · Apr 30, 1996

However, Montgomery County, which does not enjoy the benefit of the qualified immunity defense, is also a defendant in this case. … immunity defense. .

Kenneally v. Bayer

760 F. Supp. 503 · District Court, D. Maryland · Nov 9, 1990

The Justice Department’s position clearly indicates that there is a factual issue as to whether defendant was federal military personnel. *506 In addition to establishing that he was performing a military act, defendant must … By choosing to lodge a complaint with a federal entity that has no identifiable connection to the established military procedure for lodging formal complaints against District of Columbia National Guardsman, defendant clearly

Continental Casualty Co. v. Under Armour, Inc.

537 F. Supp. 2d 761 · District Court, D. Maryland · Feb 13, 2008

Because the work product doctrine is not a privilege, but rather a qualified immunity from discovery, 6 Fed. R.Evid. 501 is inapplicable, and Maryland law does not govern this waiver issue. … And, as will be *771 seen, the Fourth Circuit clearly has recognized that opinion work product protection, however exalted and immune from discovery, may nonetheless be waived. In Duplan Corp. v.

Weigel v. Maryland

950 F. Supp. 2d 811 · District Court, D. Maryland · Jun 19, 2013

Absolute Judicial Immunity “It is well-established that judges enjoy judicial immunity from suits arising out of the performance of their judicial functions.” Brookings v. … “It has been clearly established that Article 24 protects the same rights as the Fourteenth Amendment....” Barnes v. Montgomery Cnty., Md., 798 F.Supp.2d 688, 700 (D.Md.2011).

Bradley v. Baltimore Police Dep't

887 F. Supp. 2d 642 · District Court, D. Maryland · Aug 22, 2012

However, under that standard, the City Defendants do not qualify in this case as employers of Bradley for Title VII purposes. … Id. at 7-9 . 3 Eleventh Amendment immunity, of course, is not relevant to Bradley’s Title VII claims because the States have waived their sovereign immunity to such claims in federal court. Fitzpatrick v.

Carter v. Baltimore City Police Department

District Court, D. Maryland · Aug 4, 2025

“[O]fficers 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.’” … Further, “[i]f there exists a ‘legitimate question’ as to whether particular conduct violates a particular right then the right is not clearly established and qualified immunity applies.” Korb v.

Nichols v. Maryland Correctional Institution—Jessup

186 F. Supp. 2d 575 · District Court, D. Maryland · Feb 1, 2002

Hearing Officer John Sandstrom A hearing officer in a prison disciplinary proceeding may be liable if his conduct “violated 'clearly established law’ in conducting [the] hearing in the manner in which he did.” Barry v. … The Supreme Court has held that hearing officers in prison disciplinary proceedings are not entitled to absolute immunity, but may be entitled to qualified immunity. Cleavinger v.

Johnson v. MONTMINY

285 F. Supp. 2d 673 · District Court, D. Maryland · Sep 23, 2003

It follows a fortiori from my holding that plaintiffs' claims fail on the merits that defendants would also be entitled to qualified immunity as to those claims. … and Brower decisions, they did not violate any clearly established constitutional right by their conduct.