Case law

Gray v. Kern

124 F. Supp. 3d 600 · District Court, D. Maryland · Aug 21, 2015

Borzym, 379 Md. 249 , 841 A.2d 828, 841 (2004) (“[A] judge must not allow the jury to consider the issue of ‘actual malice’ unless the. evidence could establish;‘actual malice’ clearly and convincingly.”). … status” as Officer Kem that established a duty to protect Mr.

Rose v. Baltimore County Maryland

District Court, D. Maryland · May 5, 2025

“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 … immunity defense on less than all the evidence Defendants offered in support of its qualified immunity argument.

Knox v. Lanham

895 F. Supp. 750 · District Court, D. Maryland · Jul 31, 1995

The last issue to be decided is whether defendants are entitled to qualified immunity as to plaintiffs’ claim for monetary damages. … In general, public officials are free from personal liability for damages if they establish that their conduct did not violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have

Baird v. Haith

724 F. Supp. 367 · District Court, D. Maryland · Aug 31, 1988

However, when defendants are federal officials, they may be entitled to absolute or qualified immunity which would render litigation unnecessary. Barr v. … See section entitled Dismissal Under Rule 12(b)(6), below. [7] The test for removal under § 1442(a)(1) is much easier to satisfy than the test to establish official immunity. Willingham v.

Skinner v. Pinardi, LCPC

District Court, D. Maryland · Sep 4, 2025

To overcome a’ claim of qualified immunity from a § 1983 claim, there must be a showing that (1) the government official violated a federally protected right of the plaintiff; and (2) that right was clearly established … As outlined above, Skinner has plausibly alleged that his clearly established constitutional rights were violated. Therefore, any determination of qualified immunity would be premature at this juncture.

Shultz v. Smith

264 F. Supp. 2d 278 · District Court, D. Maryland · Mar 7, 2003

In fight of the fact that the Supreme Court left the issue open in Atwater , defendants clearly have a defense of qualified immunity against plaintiff’s constitutional claim. … Accordingly, his claim clearly fails under the rule that even if a plaintiff alleges a technical violation of his rights, he may not recover if he suffered no more than de minimis injury. See Robles v.

Everette v. Mitchem

146 F. Supp. 3d 720 · District Court, D. Maryland · Nov 20, 2015

River-bend was established by the Fort Belknap Indian Community’s government under tribal law, and it operates pursuant to tribal law. (Deck of Michelle Fox ¶ 6, Riverbend Mot. Dismiss. … As for the fourth factor, both tribes clearly intended for the lending companies to share in the tribes’ sovereign immunity.

Montgomery v. Bradshaw

District Court, D. Maryland · Jul 24, 2024

“Qualified immunity protects government officials from civil damages in a § 1983 action insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would … To overcome a claim of qualified immunity from a § 1983 claim, a plaintiff must show that (1) the government official violated a federally protected right of the plaintiff; and (2) that right was clearly established at

Baltimore Gas & Electric Co. v. United States

133 F. Supp. 2d 721 · District Court, D. Maryland · Mar 12, 2001

Clearly, then, BG & E qualifies as an interested party under this definition. … As a party alleging injury by the Army's action in issuing a final Solicitation, BG & E clearly also qualifies to bring suit under this broader standard. Thus, I conclude BG & E is an "interested party” under ADRA. 8 .

Alexander v. Prince George's County, Md.

901 F. Supp. 986 · District Court, D. Maryland · Oct 11, 1995

Of course, qualified immunity protects government officials “performing discretionary functions ... from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … Assuming arguendo that the Plan is unconstitutional, the Court finds that these Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity in this ease.

TFWS, Inc. v. Schaefer

183 F. Supp. 2d 789 · District Court, D. Maryland · Feb 4, 2002

The State’s Avotved Interest and the Twenty-first Amendment The State’s avowed goal of promoting temperance clearly relates to the interests generally protected by the Twenty-first Amendment. See, e.g., North Dakota v. … Overstreet qualifies as an expert economist in this case.

Paulone v. City of Frederick

787 F. Supp. 2d 360 · District Court, D. Maryland · May 3, 2011

They had notice of the potential risk of their decision, and clearly refused the accommodation knowingly.” Proctor, 32 F.Supp.2d at 829 (quoting Bartlett). … Use of qualified oral or sign language interpreters.

Maryland Community Health System, LLP v. Glendening

115 F. Supp. 2d 599 · District Court, D. Maryland · Oct 4, 2000

The defendants also move for summary judgment based on Eleventh-Amendment immunity. I. … Maryland’s payment system clearly harms Priority Partners.

Committee for the Consideration of the Jones Falls Sewage System v. Train

387 F. Supp. 526 · District Court, D. Maryland · Jan 15, 1975

The Court there held that the other defendants were entitled to the immunity of 33 U.S.C. § 1342 (k). This immunity would extend to enforcement actions by the Administrator under section 1319. … However, in several of these sections this mandatory language is qualified.

Cannady v. Petticolas

District Court, D. Maryland · Jul 8, 2021

As an initial matter, “[t]o determine whether a right was clearly established, the court first must define the right at issue,” because “[a] right is clearly established only if its contours are Governor Hogan also suggests … Here, Plaintiff's allegations fail to show that Governor Hogan violated “clearly established” law, particularly because “courts are not to define clearly established law at a high level of generality.” Wilson v.

Vancamp v. Baltimore County Maryland

District Court, D. Maryland · Jul 29, 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.’” … can violate clearly established law even under ‘novel factual circumstances.’”

Freilich v. Board of Directors of Upper Chesapeake Health, Inc.

142 F. Supp. 2d 679 · District Court, D. Maryland · May 14, 2001

She further argues in Count III that the HCQIA’s qualified immunity for medical peer review violates the Tenth Amendment of the United States Constitution and Article Three of the Maryland Constitution by invading areas of … The statute requires hospitals to establish a credentialing process for physicians and directs that regulations be promulgated to establish standards for that process.

Patterson v. Ramsey

413 F. Supp. 523 · District Court, D. Maryland · Mar 29, 1976

by the defense of qualified immunity. … There was some question however, as to the scope of the qualified immunity. Recently in Wood v.

Pevia v. Moyer

District Court, D. Maryland · May 30, 2023

conduct was clearly established at the time.’” … Qualified immunity turns on the “objective reasonableness of an official’s conduct, as measured by reference to clearly established law.” Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 (1982).

Williams v. Williams

427 F. Supp. 557 · District Court, D. Maryland · Dec 27, 1976

Some tests are well established. … . * * * Section 659 in no way purports to establish a federal right to garnishment.” In West v.