Case law

Joaquim v. Buzzuro

District Court, D. Maryland · Aug 23, 2024

With respect to the second prong of the qualified immunity analysis, a right is clearly established if the contours of the right “are sufficiently clear that ‘a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing … Having the discretion to address either of the qualified immunity prongs first, the Court concludes that Plaintiff’s claim involves a clearly established right.

Kuypers v. Comptroller of the Treasury of Maryland

173 F. Supp. 2d 393 · District Court, D. Maryland · Apr 30, 2001

It is well established that a non-consenting state is immune from a suit *396 brought in a federal court by its own citizens. Puerto Rico Aqueduct and Sewer Auth. v. … Clearly, the Eleventh Amendment takes precedence over an action purportedly filed under 46 U.S.C. § 11108 .

Presley v. Healy Tibbits Construction Co.

646 F. Supp. 203 · District Court, D. Maryland · Oct 22, 1986

Inc., 541 F.2d 427 (4th Cir.1976), the Fourth Circuit established a three-part test for determining the seamen status question: To qualify as a ‘member of the crew’ under the Jones Act, one must be more or less permanently … There is no question but that Section 905(b) could have been more sensibly and clearly written.

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.

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.”).

Miller v. Foor

District Court, D. Maryland · Jun 13, 2024

The qualified immunity inquiry is two-fold. … A right is clearly established for qualified immunity purposes if it is “clear that ‘a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates that right.’” Carroll v.

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

American Casualty Co. v. Community Savings & Loan, Inc.

635 F. Supp. 539 · District Court, D. Maryland · Apr 15, 1986

MDIF’s Director is granted qualified immunity. Id. Section 9, ch. 6. Any net earnings of MDIF are to be “accumulated for the benefit of the state.” Md.Fin.Inst.Code Ann. § 10-112(c) (Supp.1985). … Indeed, the Court would have difficulty of thinking of any circumstances that could more clearly compel the application of the doctrine. Transcript of Opinion at 4-5.

Ostrzenski v. Seigel

3 F. Supp. 2d 648 · District Court, D. Maryland · Apr 9, 1998

It is well established that judges and prosecutors are absolutely immune as individuals from liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 arising out of the exercise of their official functions. Imbler v. … Plaintiff argues that because Defendant actually went and gathered information regarding Plaintiffs competence, Defendant is more like a prosecutor exercising investigatory powers and thus enjoys only qualified immunity.

Lehan v. Wilson

District Court, D. Maryland · Apr 30, 2025

“The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials ‘from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … “A right need not be recognized bya court ina specific factual context before such right may be considered ‘clearly established’ for purposes of qualified immunity.” id. (citations omitted).

Szot v. Allstate Insurance

161 F. Supp. 2d 596 · District Court, D. Maryland · Aug 24, 2001

Yet, in the context of a work-related defamation claim, by statute 4 and common law, “[e]ommunications arising out of the employer-employee relationship ‘clearly enjoy a qualified privilege.’ ” Gohari v. … Section 5-423 of the Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article of the Maryland Code provides qualified immunity to employers for communications made to prospective employers or governmental entities regarding an employee’s

Kensington Volunteer Fire Department, Inc. v. Montgomery County

788 F. Supp. 2d 431 · District Court, D. Maryland · May 31, 2011

Second, Plaintiffs appear to argue that the Court need not inquire into legislative motives in the first place because the statements of certain government officials, standing alone, clearly establish the retaliatory nature … Obviously, then, his budget proposal was clearly within “the sphere of legitimate legislative activity.” Bogan, 523 U.S. at 55 , 118 S.Ct. 966 .

Spratlin v. Montgomery County, Md.

772 F. Supp. 1545 · District Court, D. Maryland · Aug 14, 1990

the law regarding emergency psychiatric evaluations is not clearly established. … While the Supreme Court has held that a defendant is entitled to qualified immunity if the pertinent law is not clearly established and if a police officer would not have known that his conduct violated a plaintiff’s constitutional

Williams v. Romarm S.A.

116 F. Supp. 3d 631 · District Court, D. Maryland · Jul 20, 2015

foreign state” with respect to which the foreign state is not entitled to immunity. … Although’ foreign states are generally immune from suit, the FSIA contains exceptions to that immunity in cases in which the action is based upon “a commercial activity carried on in the United States by the foreign state

Finnegan v. Department of Public Safety & Correctional Services

184 F. Supp. 2d 457 · District Court, D. Maryland · Feb 6, 2002

To proceed on a claim of disparate treatment under Title VII, a plaintiff must establish a prima facie case consisting of four elements: (1) the employee is a member of a protected class; (2) the employee was qualified for … Plaintiff also qualified for her position and her performance was satisfactory. Plaintiff has not sufficiently alleged facts that could establish the third element of a prima facie case.

Wright v. Officer Kyle Baxter

District Court, D. Maryland · Feb 26, 2025

he is entitled to qualified immunity. … If the right was not clearly established, the qualified immunity doctrine shields a defendant officer from liability.

Alabaugh v. Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Company

125 F. Supp. 401 · District Court, D. Maryland · Oct 29, 1954

The Act clearly contemplates that obligations of continued union membership as above defined may be imposed. … The administrative remedy of the National Railroad Adjustment Board was not established until the 1934 amendment to the Act. The case of Virginian Railway Co. v.

Westbrook v. Wilson

896 F. Supp. 504 · District Court, D. Maryland · May 30, 1995

Although not necessary to the disposition of the case, the Court notes that, in any event, the defendant is entitled to qualified immunity from money damage liability, because his conduct did not violate any established constitutional

Lewis v. Board of Education of Talbot County

262 F. Supp. 2d 608 · District Court, D. Maryland · May 7, 2003

of sovereign immunity. … Each new school established by the Talbot County Board becomes a “part of the State program of public education.” Id. at § 4-109.

Peed v. Cleland

516 F. Supp. 469 · District Court, D. Maryland · Jun 3, 1981

There is no justification in the opinion of both the House and Senate committees for establishing income limitations in the law so as to provide a test for need for qualifying for pension, and at the same time permitting … beneficiaries to create their own need so as to qualify for the benefit.”