Case law

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.

Carty v. Carlin

623 F. Supp. 1181 · District Court, D. Maryland · Dec 18, 1985

First, that the undisputed facts clearly indicate that, as a matter of law, the plaintiff is not a handicapped person under the terms of the Rehabilitation Act. … However, the regulation clearly states that the methods of accommodation indicated are not exhaustive.

Campbell v. Sims

District Court, D. Maryland · Jun 30, 2021

Qualified Immunity Standard Officer Sims’s primary argument relating to the § 1983 claim in Count 11 is that he is entitled to qualified immunity. … Accordingly, and where the right to be free from excessive 23 force was clearly established, the Court will deny dismissal or summary judgment based on qualified immunity on this

Norton v. Weinberger

364 F. Supp. 1117 · District Court, D. Maryland · Sep 14, 1973

Moreover, he opined that merely because a discrimination fell short of providing an insurmountable barrier did not immunize it from the Fourteenth Amendment. … It is not invidious discrimination to require § 416(h) (3) (C)(ii) children to establish the dual elements of paternity and dependency when such is not required of legitimates and those illegitimates qualifying under § 416

Nutramax Laboratories, Inc. v. Twin Laboratories Inc.

183 F.R.D. 458 · District Court, D. Maryland · Dec 7, 1998

Defendants contend that if this affirmative defense is successfully established, it will end the case. … ” or “nearly absolutely immune” from discovery.

Olumakinde v. Officers of the Classification Department of BCDC

District Court, D. Maryland · Dec 6, 2024

Qualified Immunity Finally, Defendants argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity. … In arguing for qualified immunity, Defendants make no claim that, pursuant to the second prong, it was not clearly established at the time of these events that the Fourteenth Amendment is violated when a correctional

Kidwell III v. Lee

District Court, D. Maryland · Aug 11, 2025

was clearly established at the time.’” … 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.

Witten v. AH Smith and Co.

567 F. Supp. 1063 · District Court, D. Maryland · Jul 5, 1983

limit § 1985 redress to violations of fundamental Constitutional rights. 20 During the Reconstruction Era, confronted with an increase in the violent activities of the Ku Klux Klan, members of the Forty-Second Congress established … more persons conspire to prevent by force, intimidation, or threat, any citizen who is lawfully entitled to vote, from giving his support or advocacy in a legal manner, toward or in favor of the election of any lawfully qualified

Freeman v. Robinson

District Court, D. Maryland · Feb 15, 2023

of federal rights are entitled to qualified immunity if the right was not clearly established at the time of the violation.” … Without citation to such precedent, Government Defendants could not have violated a “clearly established” federal right and they are entitled to qualified immunity.

Brink v. DaLesio

453 F. Supp. 272 · District Court, D. Maryland · Apr 5, 1978

Section 501(a) establishes the standard by which this suit is to be judged. … These accusations clearly state a cause of action under 29 U.S.C. §§ 501 and 1101 et seq. II.

Calhoun-EL

District Court, D. Maryland · Mar 26, 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

Beasley (Dorian) v. Mozingo

District Court, D. Maryland · Jan 29, 2021

If the right was not clearly established, the qualified immunity doctrine shields a defendant officer from liability. … The prohibition against the use of excessive force on a prisoner was clearly established at the time of the incident.

Pilar v. SS Hess Petrol

55 F.R.D. 159 · District Court, D. Maryland · May 22, 1972

Defendants, on the other hand, contend that the informer’s privilege is inapplicable because the identity of the informer, Wicker, has been established. … The privilege that exists is only a qualified one, which can give way under appropriate circumstances.

Mendoza v. Anne Arundel County, Maryland

District Court, D. Maryland · Mar 22, 2024

of their conduct was ‘clearly established at the time.’” … “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

Reyes

District Court, D. Maryland · Jul 23, 2026

Qualified Immunity Defendants assert they are entitled to qualified immunity. … If the right was not clearly established, the qualified immunity doctrine shields a defendant officer from liability.

Robinson v. Pytlewski

District Court, D. Maryland · Feb 7, 2020

To overcome qualified immunity, a plaintiff must demonstrate first that defendants violated a federal right, and second that the right had been “clearly established” at the time of defendant’s alleged misconduct. … Defendants argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity because Robinson has neither shown violation of his constitutional rights or, alternatively, that any such violation was clearly established.

Rorie v. Board of Education of Charles County

District Court, D. Maryland · Sep 21, 2021

Where Rorie’s race discrimination claim is likewise grounded in the clearly established right to be free from racially discriminatory discipline, Hill and Hollstein are not entitled to qualified immunity from Rorie’s § … Based on the allegations in the Amended Complaint, dismissal based on qualified immunity is not warranted because Rorie has asserted a violation of a clearly established right and has provided sufficient allegations

Gelin v. Baltimore County, State of Maryland

District Court, D. Maryland · Mar 13, 2023

was clearly established at the time.” … Wesby, 138 S.Ct. 577, 5 89 (2018) (“The ‘clearly established’ standard also requires that the legal principle - clearly prohibit the officer’s conduct in the particular circumstances before him.”).

APL Corp. v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co.

91 F.R.D. 10 · District Court, D. Maryland · Apr 25, 1980

The qualified work product immunity of Rule 26(b)(3) extends to material prepared before litigation commences, provided that “some possibility of litigation” exists. … Thus, even if the Thomas Organ approach is disregarded, those materials are not protected from discovery under Rule 26(b)(3), since the qualified immunity does not extend to “[mjaterials assembled in the ordinary course of

Wachter v. United States

689 F. Supp. 1420 · District Court, D. Maryland · Jun 23, 1988

Section 2680(h) expressly excludes misrepresentation claims from the FTCA’s waiver of sovereign immunity. Shock v. United States, 689 F.Supp. 1424, 1425-26 (D.Md.1988) (copy attached as Appendix). … The article submitted as part of his affidavit does not clearly establish that proposition.