Case law

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.

Middlebrooks v. University of Maryland at College Park

980 F. Supp. 824 · District Court, D. Maryland · Sep 23, 1997

It is clear that Congress has acted to abrogate the immunity when a state is sued under Title IX or Title VI. Lane v. … The MAPL program clearly requires a student to pass two tests by the end of her third year to continue in the program.

McKeel v. United States

178 F. Supp. 2d 493 · District Court, D. Maryland · Dec 19, 2001

Furthermore, the plain language of the contract awarded to Horton clearly establishes that the contractor assumed the responsibility for protecting workers on the site. 3 First, the contract explicitly states: The Contractor … Case law clearly establishes that “[t]he decision to hire an independent contractor to render services for the United States is precisely the type of decision that the exception is designed to shield from liability because

Maryland Committee Against the Gun Ban v. Simms

835 F. Supp. 854 · District Court, D. Maryland · Oct 6, 1993

Ruling on qualified immunity at the summary judgment phase requires: (1) identification of the specific right allegedly violated; (2) determining whether at the time of the alleged violation the right was clearly established … As to the Fourth Amendment claims, it is plain that the warrant requirement is clearly established.

Coley v. Harris

30 F. Supp. 3d 428 · District Court, D. Maryland · Jul 7, 2014

Richardson, 738 F.3d 651, 657 (5th Cir.2013) (“clearly established in the abstract that a prison official must have a reasonable justification for strip searching a prisoner” (internal citation omitted)). … Plaintiff replies by discussing the standards for qualified immunity.

Welch v. United States

316 F. Supp. 2d 252 · District Court, D. Maryland · May 4, 2004

Welch, therefore, “bears the burden of persuasion and must establish an unequivocal waiver of immunity with respect to his claim.” Lumpkins v. United States, 187 F.Supp.2d 535, 538 (D.Md.2002). … Welch cannot meet this burden because his claim falls within an exception to the FTCA’s general waiver of tort immunity- Under the FTCA, sovereign immunity remains in effect with respect to “[a]ny claim based upon an act

Schoberg v. Schwartzman

District Court, D. Maryland · Feb 28, 2025

Pauly, 580 U.S. 73 (2017) (per curiam), including two parentheticals explaining that “clearly established” for purposes of qualified immunity means that the contours of the right must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable … was [not] ‘clearly established’ at the time of” the alleged violation.

Vogel v. Crown Cork & Seal Co.

36 F. Supp. 74 · District Court, D. Maryland · Dec 23, 1940

It is still the generally accept *75 ed judicial view that a corporation is an inhabitant of only that state where it is incorporated; but it is well established that the venue provision of section 112, Title 28 U.S.C.A., … The extent of the defendant’s activities in this State clearly warrant the view that it is subject to suit here, unless the venue statute prevents it. International Harvester Co. v.

Leviton Manufacturing Co. v. Shanghai Meihao Electric, Inc.

613 F. Supp. 2d 670 · District Court, D. Maryland · May 12, 2009

immunity. … Moulinage et Retorderie de Chavanoz, 487 F.2d 480, 484-85 (4th cir.1973) (recognizing that work product documents, in a patent case, enjoy qualified immunity and are discoverable on a demonstration of substantial need and

Lowery v. Prince George's County, Md.

960 F. Supp. 952 · District Court, D. Maryland · Apr 15, 1997

The district court also ruled that the officers were protected by qualified immunity as to several claims brought against them in their individual capacities; awarded summary judgment to all defendants on claims brought under … That same conclusion clearly is warranted here. 13 V.

Achimbi v. Owoeye

District Court, D. Maryland · Nov 13, 2024

Having failed to establish entitlement to such a defense, the motion fails. Further, the qualified immunity defense is also without merit. … If the right was not clearly established, the qualified immunity doctrine shields a defendant officer from liability.

Francis v. Davidson

340 F. Supp. 351 · District Court, D. Maryland · Jan 28, 1972

Such a father is clearly not employed. … Smith establishes that, at least in the absence of congressional authorization for the exclusion clearly evidenced from the Social Security Act or its legislative history, a state eligibility standard that excludes persons

Stricker v. Eastern Off Road Equipment, Inc.

935 F. Supp. 650 · District Court, D. Maryland · Jul 23, 1996

If all such a person does, in effect, is to tabulate data, he is clearly not exempt. … Although the decisions in question must be of significance, they need not be immune from review, revision, or reversal.

Campbell v. Sims

District Court, D. Maryland · Sep 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 is of a matter … Cir, 1982) (noting that a party seeking a stay from a denial of summary judgment on qualified immunity should be able to establish irreparable injury).

Orgain v. City of Salisbury

521 F. Supp. 2d 465 · District Court, D. Maryland · Jun 25, 2007

Qualified Immunity: Chief Webster and the individual Commissioners of the Board have raised qualified immunity as an affirmative defense. … Ordinarily, a defendant’s entitlement to qualified immunity is decided at the summary judgment stage. Id. (citing Willingham v.

Start, Inc. v. Baltimore County, Md.

295 F. Supp. 2d 569 · District Court, D. Maryland · Dec 17, 2003

While the Fourth Circuit has established that local governments are not immune from liability for actions of their legislative bodies, see Berkley v. … Whether or not the County Council is immune, the “real party in interest” is Baltimore County, see Goldsmith v.

Telep v. Stickney

District Court, D. Maryland · Jun 12, 2025

“Qualified immunity protects all governmental officials except those who violate a ‘statutory or constitutional right that was clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct.’” Smith v. Murphy, 634 F. … The Court will therefore turn to the second prong of the qualified immunity analysis.9 “A right is clearly established if it would be clear to a reasonable officer that the alleged conduct is unlawful.”

Dwonzyk v. Baltimore County

328 F. Supp. 2d 572 · District Court, D. Maryland · Jun 29, 2004

In reversing a jury verdict in favor of the plaintiff, the Court held that local legislators are immune from § 1983 suits under absolute legislative immunity. Id. at 52, 56, 118 S.Ct. 966 . … In granting summary judgment to the defendant on the basis of absolute legislative immunity, Judge Smalkin noted that the Fourth Circuit extended such immunity to both state and local lawmakers. Id.

Foremanye v. Board of Community College Trustees

956 F. Supp. 574 · District Court, D. Maryland · Mar 20, 1996

In order to establish a violation of the ADA, plaintiff must prove (1) that she has a “disability,” (2) that she was “qualified” for her job, and (3) that defendant’s termination of her employment constituted an unlawful … Thus, even if plaintiff could establish that she was “qualified” for her position, her ADA claim must nonetheless fail because as a matter of law she cannot on this record establish that defendant discriminated against her

Smith v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority

133 F. Supp. 2d 395 · District Court, D. Maryland · Feb 5, 2001

The Fourth Circuit has recognized that Section 80 of the WMATA Compact confers immunity to WMATA for governmental functions, but has not addressed what acts qualify as governmental functions under the WMATA Compact. … Consequently, WMATA’s claim of immunity rests upon establishing that the decisions affecting the maintenance and repair of the primary means of ingress and egress from the station qualifies as a judgment based on considerations