Case law

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.

Brownscombe v. Department of Campus Parking

203 F. Supp. 2d 479 · District Court, D. Maryland · May 28, 2002

In order to establish a *484 violation of the ADA, Brownscombe must show: (1) that he has a disability; (2) that he is otherwise qualified for the benefit in question; and (3) that he was excluded from the benefit due to … In order for Plaintiff to establish a violation of § 504, he must assert that: (1) he has a disability; (2) he is otherwise qualified; (3) he was excluded from participation in, was denied the benefits of, or was subjected

Huff v. United States Department of Army

508 F. Supp. 2d 459 · District Court, D. Maryland · Sep 13, 2007

The Army has filed a reply. 5 According to the Army, Plaintiffs complaint fails to establish a valid jurisdictional basis or waiver of sovereign immunity. … Discussion The Army contends that Huff has failed to establish a valid jurisdictional basis for his claims or an unequivocal waiver of sovereign immunity.

Bailey v. PRINCE GEORGE'S COUNTY, MARYLAND

34 F. Supp. 2d 1025 · District Court, D. Maryland · Jan 29, 1999

established at the time of the encounter. … The result is that Brock would enjoy qualified immunity from suit. See Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 , 102 S.Ct. 2727 , 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982). Count I as to Defendant Brock will be dismissed with prejudice. VII.

Outbound Maritime Corp. v. P.T. Indonesian Consortium of Construction Industries

582 F. Supp. 1136 · District Court, D. Maryland · Mar 13, 1984

The contract at issue here clearly involved an agreement for the carriage of goods by sea. … First, the legislative history of the FSIA clearly indicates that the Act was intended to withdraw the executive branch from involvement with claims of immunity and place responsibility for such determinations with the judiciary

Hepburn Ex Rel. Hepburn v. Athelas Institute, Inc.

324 F. Supp. 2d 752 · District Court, D. Maryland · Jul 1, 2004

The level of culpability necessary for § 1983 liability reduces the need to equitably distribute damages among tort-feasors; as evidenced by the fact that the qualified immunity and professional judgment standards either … In the qualified immunity context, the plaintiff’s actions are already accounted for in examining whether the officials acted reasonably under all of the available circumstances. Anderson v.

Weakland v. United States

287 F. Supp. 2d 611 · District Court, D. Maryland · Oct 22, 2003

The record, taken in the light most favorable to Plaintiff, clearly establishes that R.R. … Thus, the evidence establishes that R.R. Gregory is a statutory employer entitled to immunity by law from tort liability. IY. Conclusion For the foregoing reasons, the motion of R.R.

Maryland v. Exxon Mobil Corp.

352 F. Supp. 3d 435 · District Court, D. Maryland · Oct 24, 2018

Indeed, "[p]roof of a 'colorable' federal defense [ ] does not require the defendant to 'win his case before he can have it removed' nor even establish that the defense is 'clearly sustainable.' " *455 Ripley v. … "Proof of a 'colorable' federal defense [ ] does not require the defendant to 'win his case before he can have it removed' nor even establish that the defense is 'clearly sustainable.' " Ripley , 841 F.3d at 210 .

Victors v. Kronmiller

553 F. Supp. 2d 533 · District Court, D. Maryland · Mar 6, 2008

immunity. … An official in a personal-capacity action “may, depending on his position, be able to assert personal immunity defenses, such as objectively reasonable reliance on existing law,” including absolute and qualified immunity.

Sanderson Farms, Inc. v. Tyson Foods, Inc.

547 F. Supp. 2d 491 · District Court, D. Maryland · Apr 22, 2008

Professor Mazis’s testimony at the four-day hearing also clearly established that the qualified language is not understood by a substantial percentage of consumers. … Plaintiffs have also established that the qualified “Raised Without Antibiotics” claim leads to consumer confusion.

United States v. Azrael

765 F. Supp. 1239 · District Court, D. Maryland · Apr 30, 1991

Likewise, the principle of sovereign immunity reflected in the Eleventh Amendment renders states immune from suits filed by private parties in federal court unless the state has waived its immunity. Hans v. … In that case, the Court held that sections 101(21) and 101(20)(D) constitute a Congressional waiver of the states’ Eleventh Amendment immunity when a state otherwise qualifies as a responsible party under Section 107(a) of

Alvarez v. Montgomery County

963 F. Supp. 495 · District Court, D. Maryland · Apr 30, 1997

They argue further that even if they violated Mark Alvarez’s Fourth Amendment rights, they are entitled to qualified immumty because it was not clearly established at the time of the underlying events that an individual’s … At a minimum, the officers enjoyed qualified immunity in these circumstances. TV. Mark Alvarez’s claim for false imprisonment also fails.

Schoberg v. Schwartzman

District Court, D. Maryland · Jun 11, 2025

Sept. 23, 2021), This rule allows for interlocutory appellate review of a denial of qualified immunity when the appeal is based on a “purely legal issue” such as “what law was clearly established,” but not when the appeal … was [not] ‘clearly established’ at the time of” the alleged violation.

Schoonfield v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore

399 F. Supp. 1068 · District Court, D. Maryland · Aug 20, 1975

This Court, therefore, determines that the pleadings, affidavits, exhibits, transcripts and depositions filed by the defendants clearly establish that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact with respect to the … Moreover, he points out that the immunity accorded public officials in Maryland is only a qualified one, conditioned upon an absence of malice. See Carr v.

Baltimore Lumber Co. v. Marcus

208 F. Supp. 852 · District Court, D. Maryland · Sep 19, 1962

who are required to qualify but (j0 not; an(j g0 ¿[0 not have an agent for service, seems the more reasonable. 6 Section 78 was clearly intended to increase the jurisdiction of the Maryland Courts at least over non-residents … The applicable rules are clearly stated by the Maryland Court of Appeals in Pressman v.

Blake v. BALTIMORE COUNTY, MD.

662 F. Supp. 2d 417 · District Court, D. Maryland · Sep 30, 2009

In particular, the Court granted summary judgment to Chief Sheridan on the ground that he enjoyed qualified immunity from suit. … The Court's July 1, 2008 opinion found that the § 1983 claims against Chief Sheridan should be dismissed on qualified immunity grounds. Blake now urges the Court to reconsider that decision.

Benisek v. Lamone

241 F. Supp. 3d 566 · District Court, D. Maryland · Mar 13, 2017

See, e.g., Gravel, 408 U.S. at 608 , 92 S.Ct. 2614 (in declining to quash grand jury subpoena for Senator’s aide, relying on cases establishing legislative immunity from suit). … Thus, in seeking to depose the witnesses who were involved in drawing the map, the plaintiffs are clearly seeking evidence necessary to prove this specific intent.

Hampel v. United States

706 F. Supp. 2d 629 · District Court, D. Maryland · Apr 15, 2010

The HCMCA establishes several requirements that must be met before certain medical malpractice actions may be filed. … The claim must be accompanied by a certificate of a qualified expert, which is to be filed with the Director within 90 days from the date of the complaint, and must attest “to departure from standards of care, and that the

Adams Housing, LLC v. City of Salisbury

147 F. Supp. 3d 390 · District Court, D. Maryland · Nov 30, 2015

as a “functional family”). ■ Without an actual decision from the Department of Neighborhood Services and Code Compliance, Adams Housing’s claims “clearly amount to no more than an abstract grievance.” … According to Salisbury, because the tenants must qualify as one of the three groups, the groups cannot mix.

Conway

District Court, D. Maryland · Sep 3, 2026

decline to consider district court precedent when determining if constitutional rights are clearly established for purposes of qualified immunity.”); Booker, 855 F.3d at 545 (“Given that published district court opinions … Accordingly, the Court did not err by ending its qualified immunity inquiry after concluding that Plaintiff’s asserted right under the Second Amendment was not clearly established. D.