Case law

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.

Pulley v. KPMG Consulting, Inc.

348 F. Supp. 2d 388 · District Court, D. Maryland · Dec 22, 2004

In order to establish that he was meeting KPMG’s expectations, Pulley must have presented qualified expert testimony of KPMG’s legitimate business expectations and an analysis of Pulley’s performance in light of those expectations … The fact that Pulley's employment was terminated, however, is clearly an adverse employment action. 3 .

Robinson v. City of Hagerstown, Maryland

District Court, D. Maryland · Apr 30, 2020

Essentially, “[q]ualified immunity shields government officials who commit constitutional violations but who, in light of clearly established law, could reasonably believe that their actions were lawful.” … However, not all errors are subject to the protection of qualified immunity.

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.

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.

Vincent v. Prince George's County, MD

157 F. Supp. 2d 588 · 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. IV.

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.

Lewis v. Forest Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

217 F. Supp. 2d 638 · District Court, D. Maryland · Aug 16, 2002

Communications arising out of the employer-employee relationship clearly enjoy a qualified privilege. Id. at 56 , 767 A.2d 321 . … A qualified privilege, however, affords but qualified immunity. Unlike the palladium of absolute privilege, its protection “is conditioned upon the absence of malice and is forfeited if it is abused.” Di Blasio v.

Robledo v. Chertoff

658 F. Supp. 2d 688 · District Court, D. Maryland · Sep 25, 2009

The citizen relative may file a Form 1-130 (“petition”) establishing the alien as the spouse, child, or parent of the citizen and thus qualifying the alien to receive an immediate visa as an immediate relative upon approval … Dep’t of Homeland Sec., DHS Establishes Interim Relief for Widows of U.S.

Robinson v. Frank B. Bishop Jr.

District Court, D. Maryland · Jul 8, 2021

“Qualified immunity protects officers who commit constitutional violations but who, in light of clearly established law, could reasonably believe that their actions were lawful.” Henry v. … Robinson has a clearly established First Amendment right to be free from retaliation for filing grievances, and prison officials are not entitled to qualified immunity based on such a claim.

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.

Boeh v. Dail

District Court, D. Maryland · Sep 12, 2025

At summary judgment, the availability of qualified immunity turns on (1) whether a plaintiff has established a violation of a constitutional right and (2) whether that right was “clearly established” at the time of the … “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.

Maddox, Jr. v. The Parole Commission of Maryland and its Agents

District Court, D. Maryland · May 25, 2023

In the alternative, Defendants argue that even if Maddox stated a constitutional claim, they are entitled to qualified immunity because they did not violate any clearly established statutory or constitutional right of which … “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

Younger v. Green

District Court, D. Maryland · Feb 17, 2021

Qualified Immunity Crowder also argues that he is entitled to qualified immunity because his conduct did not violate any clearly established right of Plaintiff Younger. … “Qualified immunity shields government officials from liability in a § 1983 suit as long as their conduct has not violated ‘clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have

El-Haggan v. Board of Education for Montgomery County

District Court, D. Maryland · Jul 16, 2025

immunity; (4) Plaintiff El-Haggan cannot allege a clearly established First Amendment right to defeat qualified immunity; and (5) Plaintiffs Robinson and Wolf can neither overcome Pickering’s balancing test, nor demonstrate … a clearly established constitutional right.

Black v. Alexander

District Court, D. Maryland · Jan 18, 2022

Qualified immunity is an affirmative defense that shields government officials from liability for civil damages in a Section 1983 suit as long as “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … Denying the officer qualified immunity, the court reasoned that “years before 1999, it was clearly established that a police officer was not entitled to use unnecessary, gratuitous, and disproportionate force against a

Taggart v. Mandel

391 F. Supp. 733 · District Court, D. Maryland · Mar 27, 1975

In order to qualify for appointment each applicant must be at' least eighteen years of age, of good moral character and integrity, a citizen of the United States, a resident of Maryland for a period of two years prior to … According to plaintiff, those decisions clearly established the principle that classifications based on alienage are inherently suspect and “subject to close judicial scrutiny.”

Newman v. Giant Food, Inc.

187 F. Supp. 2d 524 · District Court, D. Maryland · Feb 20, 2002

Giant’s policy clearly states that employees caught fighting on Giant grounds are subject to immediate termination, regardless of provocation. … To qualify as an adverse action, an employer’s action must “adversely affect[ ] the ‘terms, conditions, or benefits’ of [the plaintiffs] employment.” Von Cunten v.

Hobbs v. Baltimore County Executive

District Court, D. Maryland · Jul 18, 2023

conduct 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.

Hockley v. Eastern Transp. Co.

10 F. Supp. 908 · District Court, D. Maryland · Mar 25, 1935

On the other hand, the libellant’s most qualified expert, a Mr. … But the case is, I think, clearly distinguishable. There the court was dealing with the fire statute which affords complete immunity to any liability “unless such fire is caused by the design or neglect of such owner.”