Case law

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.

Campbell v. Perkins

District Court, D. Maryland · Sep 21, 2023

In the event this Court finds that Campbell has stated a constitutional claim, Defendants assert that they are entitled to qualified immunity because they did not violate a clearly established right. … If the right was not clearly established, the qualified immunity doctrine shields a defendant officer from liability.

Schoberg

District Court, D. Maryland · Dec 16, 2025

, Willingham, 412 F.3d at 559, and the defendant asserting qualified immunity bears the burden to establish that a right was not clearly established, Rambert v. … Schoberg had a clearly established right to be free of warrantless arrest in this case, and Defendants have not met their burden as to the clearly established prong of qualified immunity.

Pease v. American Cyanamid Co.

795 F. Supp. 755 · District Court, D. Maryland · Jun 18, 1992

To do- so would, in my mind, be to embody in the law an excessive deference to established authority on a question of continuing scientific uncertainty. … Miles Laboratories, Inc., 927 F.2d 187, 190-91 (4th Cir.1991), clearly provides me with the latitude to engage in the type of analysis which I have made.

United States v. Maryland

488 F. Supp. 347 · District Court, D. Maryland · Mar 31, 1980

McCulloch involved a stamp tax imposed by Maryland on bank notes issued by “any Bank . established without authority from the State.” … Certainly the burden, the harassment, the unpleasantness of those taxes would be as easy to establish as the burden of the present tax.

Jackson v. Carin

District Court, D. Maryland · Mar 2, 2020

right was not clearly established. … He is therefore not entitled to qualified immunity. Smith v.

Roberts v. Pepersack

256 F. Supp. 415 · District Court, D. Maryland · Jun 29, 1966

Id. 355 F.2d at 133 . 10 The quoted passage, although on its face appearing more qualified than my interpretation, may not really be so. … established by the prison officials.” Also in accord is Pierce v. La Vallee, 212 F.Supp. 865, 869 (N.D.

Verizon Maryland Inc. v. RCN Telecom Services, Inc.

232 F. Supp. 2d 539 · District Court, D. Maryland · Nov 19, 2002

The commissioners of the PSC, however, assert two constitutional bars to Verizon’s suit whose nature is less obvious: sovereign immunity (“exemplified,” if not “established,” by the Eleventh Amendment, see Alden v. … Daw, 201 F.3d 521 , 524 n. 2 (4th Cir.2000)(noting that the Fourth Circuit has not clearly determined whether a dismissal grounded in sovereign immunity operates as a dismissal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction or for

McAdoo v. Toll

591 F. Supp. 1399 · District Court, D. Maryland · Aug 7, 1984

They argue that, in order to establish a prima facie case for discrimination in a rejection of an employment application, a plaintiff must show: ... … In establishing a prima facie case of racially discriminatory treatment in violation of Title VII, a plaintiff must show by a preponderance of the evidence that he applied for an open position for which he was qualified,

Neal

District Court, D. Maryland · Nov 17, 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 alleged … “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.” Id. (citations omitted).

Cain v. Rock

67 F. Supp. 2d 544 · District Court, D. Maryland · Oct 14, 1999

Likewise, Cain has failed to establish fault on behalf of the County. … In contrast to certain government officials, municipalities do not enjoy qualified or absolute immunity from suit under § 1983. Leatherman v. Tarrant Cty.

Hall v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority

33 F. Supp. 3d 630 · District Court, D. Maryland · Jul 30, 2014

On an interlocutory appeal of the district court’s denial of the officer’s summary judgment motion on grounds of qualified immunity, the Eleventh Circuit affirmed, and Deputy Scott appealed again. … The video clearly depicts Hall-standing at the front of the bus, waiting to exit while other passengers board the bus.

Gbenoba v. Montgomery County Department of Health & Human Services

209 F. Supp. 2d 572 · District Court, D. Maryland · Jul 23, 2002

The plaintiff has established a prima facie case of discrimination with respect to ten of the eleven promotional opportunities about which he complains. Clearly, in all instances, Mr. … Under such circumstances, the plaintiff clearly cannot establish that he applied for an open position, and therefore he has failed to establish a prima facie case.

Brown v. State of Maryland

District Court, D. Maryland · Oct 8, 2025

Qualified immunity shields a government official from civil damages in a § 1983 action if the official’s conduct does not violate clearly established law. Bland v. Roberts, 730 F.3d 368, 391 (4th Cir. 2013). … In determining whether an official is entitled to qualified immunity, a court must consider (1) whether the official violated the plaintiff’s constitutional right and (2) whether the right was clearly established at the

Palmont v. Wright

District Court, D. Maryland · Dec 1, 2020

Qualified immunity provides government officials with a shield from liability for civil damages so long as the conduct at issue was a discretionary function, and insofar as the conduct did not “violate clearly established … A government official is entitled to qualified immunity unless: “(1) the allegations, if true, substantiate a violation of a federal statutory or constitutional right and (2) the right was ‘clearly established’ such that

Krell v. Braightmeyer

District Court, D. Maryland · Jan 27, 2020

Stay at 6, ECF No. 90-1)), others appear to focus on legal issues (e.g., Defendants’ argument that there is no “clearly established law” that a “condition that has been ongoing for years” can serve as the basis of a … TWI Pharm., (exercising jurisdiction over an interlocutory appeal that raised qualified immunity and state immunity arguments).

Williams v. Prince George's County, MD

157 F. Supp. 2d 596 · District Court, D. Maryland · Aug 6, 2001

In other words, if there clearly exist factual issues “that properly can be resolved only by a finder of fact because they may reasonably be resolved in favor of either party,” then summary judgment is inappropriate. … Thus, he has not established an essential element of the tort, and his claim fails. E.

Chung Shin v. Shalala

166 F. Supp. 2d 373 · District Court, D. Maryland · Apr 13, 2001

Instead the Plaintiff has attempted to establish a claim of discrimination through circumstantial evidence. … Plaintiff was clearly qualified for the position as shown by the certifícate of eli-gibles prepared by Defendant for the job opening.

Orellana v. United States of America

District Court, D. Maryland · Sep 25, 2023

Clearly Established Right As for whether the right at issue was clearly established at the time of this incident, in considering whether a right is “clearly established,” the Court considers whether “the contours … established at the time of this incident, the Court must deny summary judgment on the issue of qualified immunity, IV.

United States v. Shacter

293 F. Supp. 1057 · District Court, D. Maryland · Dec 12, 1968

qualified for exemption. … The defendant’s early religious training, including instruction by his mother in the principles of conscientious objection, has been clearly established.