Case law

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.

Pullium v. Ceresini

221 F. Supp. 2d 600 · District Court, D. Maryland · Mar 5, 2002

Defendants also argue that, even if the officer’s(s’) conduct violated Plaintiffs constitutional rights, Officer Ceresini is entitled to qualified immunity. … The parties seem to agree that the establishment of a special relationship also deprives the officer of the benefits of any immunities. See Williams v.

Marylanders for Fair Representation, Inc. v. Schaefer

144 F.R.D. 292 · District Court, D. Maryland · Oct 14, 1992

When viewed in this light, the actions of the Governor seem clearly to fall within the purview of “legitimate legislative activity.” … Once the Governor’s immunity has been established, the question then becomes whether the members of the Committee should derive complete immunity from the Governor, or whether they are only entitled to some lesser form of

Vialet

District Court, D. Maryland · Mar 11, 2026

Second, Grooms and Levy are entitled to qualified immunity. … conduct was clearly established at the time.’”

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.

Ihnken v. Gardner

927 F. Supp. 2d 227 · District Court, D. Maryland · Feb 27, 2013

Thus, if the shutdown was a deprivation of Ihnken’s constitutional rights, any county official involved in the shutdown may be liable, unless they are entitled to qualified immunity. Id. at 783 . … Furthermore, although the individual defendants argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity on this and all of Ihnken’s § 1983 claims, because the record is not developed enough to determine whether a constitutional

Harrell

District Court, D. Maryland · Mar 30, 2026

“Qualified immunity shields government officials performing discretionary functions from personal-capacity liability for civil damages under § 1983, insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … “If a violation of a constitutional right in fact exists, qualified immunity nonetheless shields a [public] official from liability, unless the violation was of a ‘clearly established right of which a reasonable person

Ward v. Ackroyd

344 F. Supp. 1202 · District Court, D. Maryland · Jun 8, 1972

The only question before this court is whether immunity has been waived. … designed to enforce the provisions of federal law which establish the conditions under which the federal aid can be distributed to or obtained by the state.

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.

Zander v. United States

843 F. Supp. 2d 598 · District Court, D. Maryland · Feb 13, 2012

The Propriety of Dismissal for Failure to Comply with the Health Care Malpractice Claims Act “As a sovereign, the United States is immune from all suits against it absent an express waiver of its immunity.” Welch v. … “[W]aivers of sovereign immunity are strictly construed and ambiguities in statutory language are construed in favor of immunity....” Flory v. United States, 138 F.3d 157, 160 (5th Cir.1998) (citing Lane v.

Hodgin v. Jefferson

447 F. Supp. 804 · District Court, D. Maryland · Mar 13, 1978

Individuals are not immune from liability under § 1985(3) merely because the same corporation employs them. … Equal Pay Act Claim Defendants argue that “[t]he asserted claim under the Fair Labor Standards Act ( 29 U.S.C. § 206 ) in paragraphs 13-15 is clearly insufficient.”

Ramey v. Martin-Baker Aircraft Co.

656 F. Supp. 984 · District Court, D. Maryland · Mar 19, 1987

First, neither Ramey nor Waller was qualified to remove the ejection seat from the aircraft. Second, the portable cranes customarily used to lift ejection seats out of cockpits were not available. … Possibly the most significant reason supporting the government contract defense is to avoid subverting the underlying policies of governmental immunity established in Feres v.

Al-Quraishi v. Nakhla

728 F. Supp. 2d 702 · District Court, D. Maryland · Jul 29, 2010

The actions alleged, if proven, clearly exceed the immunities ordinarily afforded to belligerents. … But, accepting that this statement may once have been valid, later case-law has rather clearly qualified it. In Freeland v.

Booze v. Lewter

District Court, D. Maryland · Jan 8, 2025

“To overcome qualified immunity, a plaintiff must typically show (1) that the government official violated a statutory or constitutional right and (2) that right was clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct … The Court will therefore deny the Motion on the issue of qualified immunity, as prematurely raised.

Brown Jr. v. Watts

District Court, D. Maryland · Nov 7, 2022

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). … If the law at the time of the alleged violation was not “clearly established,” the official will be entitled to qualified immunity because “an official could not reasonably be expected to anticipate subsequent

Musselman v. Phillips

176 F.R.D. 194 · District Court, D. Maryland · Oct 10, 1997

and can be discovered only in very rare and extraordinary circumstances.’ ”). 3 Whether the applicable immunity from discovery is qualified — as for fact work product — or “nearly absolute” — for opinion work product — it … work product protection, regardless of whether that protection is termed an immunity from discovery or a qualified privilege.”).

Charles Burton Builders, Inc. v. United States

768 F. Supp. 160 · District Court, D. Maryland · Jul 8, 1991

2548, 2552 , 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986): [T]he plain language of Rule 56(c) mandates the entry of summary judgment, after adequate time for discovery and upon motion, against a party who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish … SUBSTANTIVE DISCUSSION The Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1346 , constitutes a waiver of the United States Government’s traditional shield of sovereign immunity.

Mills v. Lowndes

26 F. Supp. 792 · District Court, D. Maryland · Mar 1, 1939

If so, the discrimination is clearly unlawful. In Simpson v. … This immunity is a personal privilege which may be waived. Missouri v. Fiske, 290 U.S. 18, 24 , 54 S.Ct. 18 , 78 L.Ed. 145 .

Burlington Industries v. Exxon Corp.

65 F.R.D. 26 · District Court, D. Maryland · Oct 21, 1974

The court found such communications clearly within the ambit of the attorney-client privilege. … The Work Product Doctrine in Subsequent Litigation The qualified immunity of documents within the work product doctrine does not end when the lawsuit for which the documents were prepared terminates. In Duplan Corp. v.

Myers v. Town of Elkton, Maryland

District Court, D. Maryland · Aug 16, 2024

established to vitiate the Officer Defendants’ qualified immunity? … established law for purposes of adjudging entitlement to qualified immunity’”) (quoting Hogan v.