Case law

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

In re KBR, Inc.

925 F. Supp. 2d 752 · District Court, D. Maryland · Feb 27, 2013

The en banc majority concluded that it lacked jurisdiction because combatant activities-based preemption is not an immunity but a defense, and derivative sovereign immunity is a qualified immunity that requires government … Notably, the finding of the District Court upheld in Velasco was not based on discovery, but rather upon “extensive affidavits and supporting documents” which established a prima facie case of immunity which was not overcome

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.”

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.

Mobley v. Mallow

District Court, D. Maryland · Nov 21, 2019

They also raise the affirmative defenses of qualified immunity, arguing that their conduct did not violate any clearly established constitutional right of which a reasonable public official should have known. … However, “[b]Jecause an official ‘who performs an act clearly established to be beyond the scope of his discretionary authority is not entitled to claim qualified immunity,’ the The defense of qualified immunity does

Booth v. State of Md.

940 F. Supp. 849 · District Court, D. Maryland · Oct 3, 1996

If not, the doctrine that a State may waive its Eleventh Amendment immunity would seem to do so. … thereby to have waived its immunity,” Parden v.

Ryan v. United States

304 F. Supp. 2d 678 · District Court, D. Maryland · May 12, 2003

Because this action does not sound in admiralty, however, Ryan must establish a jurisdictional basis for bringing suit against the government that also establishes a waiver of the government’s sovereign immunity. … Case law has clearly established 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

Jeffers v. Thompson

264 F. Supp. 2d 314 · District Court, D. Maryland · May 8, 2003

Jeffers was apparently the oldest of all the “best qualified” applicants, and the ultimate decision-maker, Mr. Cade, was younger. Ms. Jeffers has established a prima facie case of age discrimination. … Just as clearly, a proposed suspension that is never carried out does not. See Howze v. Va.

Pevia v. Moyer

District Court, D. Maryland · Oct 3, 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). … In other words, “[b]ecause an official ‘who performs an act clearly established to be beyond the scope of his discretionary authority is not entitled to claim qualified immunity,’ the defendant bears the initial burden

Childs v. McCord

420 F. Supp. 428 · District Court, D. Maryland · Sep 29, 1976

The legislative history of this statute clearly reveals a congressional intent that a “statutory [claim of immunity] be as broad as, but no broader than, the privilege against self-incrimination.” H.R.Rep. … West Virginia, 129 U.S. 114, 122 , 9 S.Ct. 231, 233 , 32 L.Ed. 623 (1889), the Supreme Court has acknowledged the power of a state “to provide for the general welfare of its people” by establishing licensing requirements

Benford v. American Broadcasting Companies, Inc.

102 F.R.D. 208 · District Court, D. Maryland · Jun 6, 1984

That legitimate legislative functions include information-gathering in aid of the legislative process is a long-established principle. Eastland, 421 U.S. at 504-05 , 95 S.Ct. at 1821-22 ; McGrain v. … They were not meddlesome interlopers; though volunteers, their services were clearly procured through the catalytic efforts of Committee staff.

Taylor v. Prince George's County, Maryland

377 F. Supp. 1004 · District Court, D. Maryland · Jul 1, 1974

This principle was clearly enunciated in Wynkoop v. … At the outset, Article XI-A §§ 1 and 1A of the Maryland Constitution establish procedures for electing charter boards and for the preparation and adoption of county charters.

Sallie v. Tax Sale Investors, Inc.

998 F. Supp. 612 · District Court, D. Maryland · Mar 19, 1998

As to the latter contention, that TSI is entitled to a “qualified, good faith immunity,” this admixture by TSI of the distinct qualified immunity enjoyed by a governmental actor sued in his or her individual capacity, and … immunity.

COMMITTEE FOR CONSID. OF JONES FALLS SEW. SYS. 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.

Orellana v. United States of America

District Court, D. Maryland · Apr 5, 2021

Defendants alternatively argue that the Individual Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity because Plaintiff cannot establish a violation of her Fourth Amendment rights; and even if she could, … [] Qualified immunity is applicable unless the official’s conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right.” Id. (citing Anderson v.

State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Slade Healthcare, Inc.

381 F. Supp. 3d 536 · District Court, D. Maryland · Mar 31, 2019

Id. at 12. " 'An absolute privilege is distinguished from a qualified privilege in that the former provides immunity regardless of the purpose or motive of the defendant, or the reasonableness of his conduct, while the latter … Watkins , 227 Md. 578 , 583, 177 A.2d 841 , 843 (1962) (concluding that if the qualified immunity enjoyed by the defendant federal officer immunized him from liability for defamation, it also immunized him from liability

Donohue v. Maryland Casualty Company

248 F. Supp. 588 · District Court, D. Maryland · Dec 21, 1965

from this type of suit established by Art. 101, §§ 15 and 36. … also be immune when performing a duty imposed on the employer at common law, just as the employer is immune when performing either class of duties.

Brown

District Court, D. Maryland · Aug 26, 2026

Adismissal of a complaint based on qualified immunity “is appropriate when the face of the complaint clearly reveals the existence of a meritorious defense.” Brockington v. … Brownhas sufficiently alleged facts that, if true,show a violation of a constitutional right that was clearly established at the time of the incident, therefore overcoming qualified immunitybased on the pleadings and for

Hunter v. Snee

District Court, D. Maryland · Jan 24, 2022

Qualified immunity shields an officer from claims for damages unless Plaintiff shows “(1) that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) that the right was ‘clearly established’ at the time … Because the test is two-fold, if the Court determines the right is not clearly established, then the doctrine of qualified immunity will shield Defendant from liability.

Chan v. Lopez

District Court, D. Maryland · Jul 31, 2024

The individual Defendants assert that they enjoy qualified immunity because “it is not clearly established that public employees are subject to individual liability under FMLA.” ECF 18 at 11 n.7. … In other words, what must be clearly established in the qualified immunity context is a right enjoyed by the Plaintiff, not whether a particular party can be sued or held liable for a violation of that right.