Case law

Gill v. Mallow

District Court, D. Maryland · Nov 13, 2023

If the evidence establishes a violation of a constitutional right, the second prong is to assess whether the right was “clearly established” at the time of the events at issue. Id. … If the right was not clearly established, the qualified immunity doctrine shields a defendant officer from liability.

Freeman v. Bragunier Masonry Contractors, Inc.

928 F. Supp. 611 · District Court, D. Maryland · Jun 14, 1996

In order to establish that Freeman fraudulently joined Bragunier, Sverdrup must show either: That there is no possibility that the plaintiff would be able to establish a cause of action against the in-state defendant in state … Defendant Lynchburg asserts the existence of a statutory immunity from suit under Maryland law as well as under Virginia law.

Exchange & Savings Bank of Berlin v. United States

242 F. Supp. 838 · District Court, D. Maryland · Jun 4, 1965

The question at issue is whether the taxpayer bank qualifies during those years for exemption from taxation under section 7507(b) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954. 1 *840 The case comes to me on cross motions for summary … The facts now before me indicate clearly that a lien on future earnings existed here and that the amounts paid in taxes by the bank would have been paid directly to the depositors in each of the three years 1957 to 1959.

Mackey v. Maryland Department of Health

District Court, D. Maryland · Sep 26, 2024

of their conduct was clearly established at the time.’” … Courts employ a two-prong inquiry to determine whether a government official enjoys qualified immunity: “(1) whether the official violated a constitutional right; and if so (2) whether the right was ‘clearly established

Burtnick v. McLean

953 F. Supp. 121 · District Court, D. Maryland · Jan 29, 1997

That is, he has unquestionably shown that he was as qualified — in fact, more qualified — to be hired for the job as was the selectee (Ms. Goodman), from the standpoint of education and directly relevant job experience. … She was in fact appointed on July 1, 1992, the day Burtnick’s old job was abolished and the Administrative Officer III position was established.

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.

Wormuth v. Prince George's County, Maryland

District Court, D. Maryland · Mar 31, 2025

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 person would have … But as explained above, Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity on Wormuth’s individual claim, because it was not clearly established in March 2021 that a warrant as broad as the one at issue here was unconstitutional

Dewhurst v. Telenor Invest As

83 F. Supp. 2d 577 · District Court, D. Maryland · Jan 24, 2000

The parties also agreed to establish a new corporation, ultimately NNT, to provide financial and management services to FCN (collectively the “NNT/FCN venture”). … Commercial activity unrelated to the lawsuit will not relinquish a foreign state’s immunity.

Hollander v. Pan American World Airways, Inc.

382 F. Supp. 96 · District Court, D. Maryland · Mar 7, 1974

Undoubtedly there are many varieties of situations in any of which the conditional or qualified privilege might arise. W. … of proof, rather than rely upon qualified privilege.

Pallett

District Court, D. Maryland · Aug 26, 2026

Defendants’ qualified immunity argument likewise fails at this juncture. … “Qualified immunity bars § 1983 actions against government officials in their individual capacities ‘unless (1) they violated a federal statutory or constitutional right, and (2) the unlawfulness of their conduct was clearly

Jordan v. Davis

District Court, D. Maryland · Jul 31, 2024

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 legal developments … The Fourth Circuit has “effectively done away with the clearly established prong of qualified immunity for a subset of deliberate indifference cases,” Younger, 79 F.4th at 385 n.17, namely, cases in which the alleged “Eighth

Barry

District Court, D. Maryland · Jul 8, 2026

immunity: “Absent from the Complaint are any plausible factual allegations that any defendant engaged in conduct that a reasonable correctional official would have recognized as violating a ‘clearly established’ … This aggravation was the unconstitutional conduct at issue, and because it “was clearly established” as unconstitutional when the Case officers acted, they were not entitled to qualified immunity. □□□ So too here

Neal v. Fryer

District Court, D. Maryland · Feb 25, 2025

Qualified immunity “typically involves two inquiries: (1) whether the plaintiff has established the violation of a constitutional right, and (2) whether that right was clearly established at the time of the … “Aright need not be recognized by a court in a specific factual context before such right may be considered ‘clearly established’ for purposes of qualified immunity.” /d:-(citations omitted). However, courts.

Campbell v. U.S. Navy

567 F. Supp. 356 · District Court, D. Maryland · Jul 11, 1983

However, plaintiff shall have twenty days in which to file an amended complaint which properly establishes subject matter jurisdiction. … Defendants alternatively contend that sovereign immunity deprives the Court of subject matter jurisdiction.

Jones v. Jordan

District Court, D. Maryland · Jul 2, 2020

It is well-settled that government officials performing discretionary functions are entitled to qualified immunity “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which … “‘whether that right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation.’”

Queen v. Pesterfield

District Court, D. Maryland · Jun 6, 2025

Qualified Immunity Defendants also raise a defense of qualified immunity. (Mot. at 5). … Baltimore City Police Department, the Fourth Circuit reiterated: “Qualified immunity protects government officials from liability for ‘civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory

Miles v. State of Maryland

District Court, D. Maryland · Aug 28, 2025

And with respect to qualified immunity, although dismissal 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 … And the legal standards under the Eighth Amendment based on threats among prisoners are clearly established, as discussed above.

Saunders v. Baltimore City Police Dept.

District Court, D. Maryland · Mar 30, 2020

Once a qualified immunity defense is raised, to avoid dismissal “a plaintiff must allege sufficient facts to set forth a violation of a constitutional right, and the court must conclude that this right was clearly established … At present, however, both approaches result in qualified immunity for the officer, as any Fourth Amendment right is not “clearly established.”

Stedman v. Dean

District Court, D. Maryland · Apr 2, 2025

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY Defendants seek to dismiss Plaintiff’s federal constitutional claims, invoking qualified immunity. … [not] clearly established at the time of’ its alleged violation.”

Moreno v. Toll

480 F. Supp. 1116 · District Court, D. Maryland · Oct 31, 1979

Clearly the University is not bound to use the concept of domicile, as defined by state law, in fashioning its- tuition policy. … Given the University’s definition of domicile, which by its terms excludes nonimmigrant aliens, it is universally true that G-4 aliens cannot qualify for instate status under that policy.