Case law

United States v. Maryland

471 F. Supp. 1030 · District Court, D. Maryland · Jun 12, 1979

Thus, the 1974 Act also served to confirm the construction intended by the Legislature but not clearly expressed in the 1971 Act. … Federal Immunity from State Taxation: A Reassessment, 45 Chi.L.Rev. 695 (1978). .

Baucom v. Potter

225 F. Supp. 2d 585 · District Court, D. Maryland · Sep 17, 2002

To establish a cause of action for disparate treatment under the Rehabilitation Act, 4 a plaintiff must show that 1) he has a disability, 2) he is otherwise qualified for the position, and 3) he suffered an adverse employment … To establish a failure to accommodate claim, a plaintiff must show that 1) he is an otherwise qualified individual with a disability, i.e., he is able to perform the essential functions of the job in question with or without

Cooper

District Court, D. Maryland · Jan 20, 2026

Qualified Immunity Finally, Toh argues that he is entitled to qualified immunity. ECF 8-1, at 9-10. … of their conduct was clearly established at the time.’”

J.A.

District Court, D. Maryland · Sep 14, 2026

“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 … “[O]ff[ials] 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.’”

Brent v. City of Cumberland Police Department

District Court, D. Maryland · Oct 27, 2023

Analysis The question before the Court is whether class-of-one Equal Protection law is not clearly established such that the Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. … Defendants contend that Engquist has disrupted the law on class-of-one claims such that the law is no longer clearly established and so Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. (Defs.’

Murphy v. Bishop

District Court, D. Maryland · Feb 17, 2023

“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 … If the right was not clearly established, the qualified immunity doctrine shields a defendant officer from liability.

Johnson v. Baltimore Police Department

District Court, D. Maryland · Mar 10, 2020

Qualified immunity turns on the “objective reasonableness of an official’s conduct, as measured by reference to clearly established law.” Harlow, 457 U.S. at 818. … However, “[a] right 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.”

Telep v. Stickney

District Court, D. Maryland · May 3, 2024

Thus, ‘unless the plaintiff’s allegations state a claim of a violation of clearly established law, a defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled to dismissal before the commencement of discovery.’” … Although a “case directly on point for a right to be clearly established” is not necessary to deny an officer qualified immunity, “existing precedent must have placed the statutory or constitutional question beyond debate

Floyd v. Hansen

District Court, D. Maryland · Aug 14, 2024

“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 … right was clearly established at the time.”

Pradhan v. Al-Sabah

299 F. Supp. 2d 493 · District Court, D. Maryland · Jan 5, 2004

Instead, Defendants simply maintain that Plaintiffs have failed to state a claim or plead any facts establishing liability. … Without more, Defendants have failed to meet their burden of proving immunity as necessary to establish that this court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over these claims.

National Board for Certification in Occupational Therapy, Inc. v. American Occupational Therapy Ass'n

24 F. Supp. 2d 494 · District Court, D. Maryland · Sep 30, 1998

Consequently, AOTA’s attempt to freeze the definition of “duly qualified” is misguided. … This action, however, is immune from antitrust liability, pursuant to Eastern R.R. Presidents Conference v.

Purnell v. Converse

District Court, D. Maryland · Dec 9, 2022

Qualified Immunity “The doctrine of qualified immunity shields government officials from liability for civil damages when their conduct does not violate clearly established … July 30, 2010) (refusing to grant qualified immunity at the summary judgment stage because the officers bore the burden of establishing qualified immunity and had not established the existence of probable cause permitting

Bly v. Circuit Court for Howard County, MD

District Court, D. Maryland · Jun 26, 2019

The doctrine of qualified immunity shields government officials “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … Here, Judge Gelfman clearly qualifies as a judicial officer.

Rose v. Baltimore County Maryland

District Court, D. Maryland · Aug 23, 2024

“[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.’” … Radomski’s allegedly violated right was “clearly established” at the time Officer Defendants shot him do not militate in favor of the outcome they seek at this time; a finding as to qualified immunity is premature.

Davis v. Pavlik, Jr

District Court, D. Maryland · Sep 7, 2022

Second, Officer Estime also argues that he is entitled to qualified immunity “as to plaintiff’s constitutional claim for excessive force under Section 1983,” because there is no clearly established law prohibiting his … Plaintiff also argues that Officer Estime is not entitled to qualified immunity, because his actions violated a clearly established right. Id. at 20-27.

Brooks v. McKimmie

District Court, D. Maryland · Apr 4, 2025

Qualified Immunity The defense of qualified immunity shields public officials from civil liability unless they violated a “statutory or constitutional right that was clearly established … To defeat qualified immunity, the record must show that (1) McKimmie violated Brooks’s constitutional right and (2) that right was “clearly established” when the violation occurred. Id.

O'MEARA v. Waters

464 F. Supp. 2d 474 · District Court, D. Maryland · Oct 4, 2006

Once service has been contested, the plaintiff bears the burden of establishing the validity of service pursuant to Rule 4. See Norlock v. City of Garland, 768 F.2d 654, 656 (5th Cir.1985). … It is well established that under ordinary circumstances, the availability of a refund suit constitutes such an adequate, alternative remedy.

Davis

District Court, D. Maryland · Mar 19, 2026

“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 an assertion 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

Robertson v. Maryland State Department of Personnel

481 F. Supp. 108 · District Court, D. Maryland · Mar 3, 1978

Clearly, plaintiff was not eligible for or qualified for the position of superintendent or assistant superintendent at any of the institutions involved. This Court so ruled at the close of the plaintiff’s case. … Lockyear, the most professionally qualified for the position.

Jackson v. the Martin Company

180 F. Supp. 475 · District Court, D. Maryland · Jan 29, 1960

Some tests are well established. … In either case, a state court is qualified to construe the indictment and the relevant statutes.