Case law

Dobbs v. Townsend

District Court, D. Maryland · Sep 19, 2019

If the right was not clearly established, the qualified immunity doctrine shields a defendant officer from liability. … , and if so, whether the right was clearly established at that time.

Ogunsula v. Warrenfeltz

District Court, D. Maryland · Dec 23, 2021

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.”

Polido v. Crowley

District Court, D. Maryland · Jan 24, 2024

Government officials sued in their individual capacities are entitled to qualified immunity where “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would … The qualified immunity inquiry is two-fold.

Corporal v. Weber

District Court, D. Maryland · Jan 28, 2022

The Correctional Defendants have asserted that they are all entitled to qualified immunity because their conduct did not violate clearly established law. … Yet absent a finding that those rights were clearly established, the Correctional Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity against Corporal’s claims.

Attkisson v. Bridges

District Court, D. Maryland · Mar 16, 2021

Without a clearly established right to recover against a mere “procurer” of illegal interceptions, the Plaintiffs cannot establish both prongs of the test as required to overcome Rosenstein’s claim of qualified immunity … Nevertheless, even if the Plaintiffs could be said to have established the “clearly established right” prong of the qualified immunity test, they have undoubtedly failed to establish the prong which requires them to show

United States v. State of Md.

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

Several years later the Supreme Court observed that "the line between the taxable and the immune has been drawn by an unsteady hand." United States v. … Thus, the 1974 Act also served to confirm the construction intended by the Legislature but not clearly expressed in the 1971 Act.

Corral v. Montgomery County

91 F. Supp. 3d 702 · District Court, D. Maryland · Mar 9, 2015

Both argued they were entitled to qualified immunity. … Smith and Bris-sett had not established that they were entitled to qualified immunity at this stage of the proceedings, and the claims against them in their individual capacities were permitted to proceed, along with the

Imperial v. Suburban Hosp. Ass'n, Inc.

862 F. Supp. 1390 · District Court, D. Maryland · Oct 12, 1993

The Court will analyze first the defendants’ federal law immunity and will then consider their state law immunity. … Thus,- if Section 14 — 501(f) applies retroactively, the defendants qualify for immunity under Maryland law. The plaintiff has provided no evidence suggesting the contrary. III.

Jenkins v. Penrow

583 F. Supp. 15 · District Court, D. Maryland · Jul 12, 1983

immunity for their actions in executing the search warrant pursuant to which they acted. … In view of this ruling, the issue of good faith immunity of the police officers need not even be reached.

Bickley v. University of Maryland

527 F. Supp. 174 · District Court, D. Maryland · Nov 16, 1981

The plaintiff’s 1976 charge alleged sex discrimination in the nature of differing pay rates between similarly qualified male and female assistant professors. Section 703(a), 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a). … Since this suit was not filed within three years of her awareness of the University’s decision, her termination claim is clearly time barred. See, e. g., Hall v.

Robinson v. Washington County Board of Education

District Court, D. Maryland · Oct 12, 2023

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 v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 (1982).

Doe 4 v. Montgomery County Board of Education

District Court, D. Maryland · Dec 23, 2021

Qualified Immunity The doctrine of qualified immunity protects state officials “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … As to the second prong of the qualified immunity inquiry, the Court considers whether the constitutional right Defendants Crouse and Sullivan allegedly violated was a “clearly established” right “of which a reasonable person

OT, LLC v. Harford County Maryland

District Court, D. Maryland · Oct 24, 2019

established” for qualified immunity purposes … “Clearly established” in this context includes not only already specifically adjudicated rights, but those manifestly included within more general applications of … The pertinent question, with respect to qualified immunity, is whether reasonable persons would have known that the Delegates’ conduct could violate these clearly established rights.

Doe 4 v. Montgomery County Board of Education

District Court, D. Maryland · Dec 23, 2021

Qualified Immunity The doctrine of qualified immunity protects state officials “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … As to the second prong of the qualified immunity inquiry, the Court considers whether the constitutional right Defendants Crouse and Sullivan allegedly violated was a “clearly established” right “of which a reasonable person

White v. City of Hagerstown

District Court, D. Maryland · Jun 5, 2020

Qualified immunity protects a government official from civil liability “unless the official’s conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right.” Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 232 (2009). … To determine whether an official is entitled to qualified immunity, the Court asks (1) “whether a constitutional violation occurred” and (2) “whether the right violated was clearly established” at the time of the alleged

Pfeifer v. Lever Bros. Co.

693 F. Supp. 358 · District Court, D. Maryland · Jul 7, 1987

Moreover, even Farmer’s evaluations of Pfeifer are on the whole qualified. … business environment. *365 This case presents quite clearly the latter situation.

Ross v. Community Services, Inc.

405 F. Supp. 831 · District Court, D. Maryland · Dec 31, 1975

In entering a preliminary injunction, this Court ordered the Secretary to establish an initial operating expense level for the Uplands project and then to determine whether this project qualified for an operating subsidy … As discussed more fully in the Ross opinion, the clearly expressed Congressional purpose was to establish a program designed to provide assistance to low income tenants who were required to pay increased rents justifiably

Brown v. Weinberger

382 F. Supp. 1092 · District Court, D. Maryland · Oct 15, 1974

In this case, the allegations of the complaint do not present an unsubstantial claim, and in fact plaintiffs have clearly asserted the existence of a constitutionally-protected right to notice and a hearing under Goldberg … In this case, plaintiffs first qualified under a state plan and were thus qualified for federal benefits under the presumptive eligibility status established by Congress.

Belyakov v. Medical Science & Computing

86 F. Supp. 3d 430 · District Court, D. Maryland · Feb 6, 2015

position for which he was qualified; (3) he was rejected despite being qualified; and (4) the position remained open or was filled by a similarly qualified applicant who was sub *442 stantially younger than the plaintiff … Although he apparently has established a prima facie case for age discrimination under the McDonnell Douglas framework, because he is over 40 years old, applied for a position for which he was ostensibly qualified, was not

Flota Maritima Browning De Cuba v. Motor Vessel Ciudad De La Habana

245 F. Supp. 205 · District Court, D. Maryland · Aug 16, 1965

and a motion for sovereign immunity, to prevent the sale of the vessel. … Ciudad de la Habana was immune from seizure or would be immune from execution.