Case law

Champ v. Baltimore County

884 F. Supp. 991 · District Court, D. Maryland · Apr 19, 1995

To establish a violation of either statute, Champ must show (1) that he has a disability; (2) that he is otherwise qualified for the job; and (3) that defendants placed him on disability retirement due to discrimination solely … The language of Administrative Rule 16-22 clearly indicates that assignment to light-duty is temporary.

Tserkis v. Baltimore County, Maryland

District Court, D. Maryland · Jul 23, 2021

was clearly established at the time.’” … 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.”

Lewis v. Campbell

District Court, D. Maryland · Aug 30, 2019

were lawful ‘in light of clearly established law.’” … Lott, 372 F.3d 267, 279 (4th Cir. 2004) (stating that, in applying the “clearly established” qualified immunity standard, courts “look ordinarily to ‘the decisions of the Supreme Court, [the] court of appeals, and the

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

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.

Britton v. Bullen

275 F. Supp. 756 · District Court, D. Maryland · Nov 13, 1967

That the intent and effect of the jury selection system, by longstanding and established practices, and as actually and systematically practiced and applied by the Defendants under color of such State laws, rules, customs … “The question may be plainly unsubstantial, either because it is ‘obviously without merit’ or because ‘its unsoundness so clearly results from the previous decisions of this court as to foreclose the subject and leave no

Johnson v. Moore-McCormack Lines, Inc.

460 F. Supp. 1195 · District Court, D. Maryland · Nov 29, 1978

Although the trial judge in instructing the jury did not qualify the vessel’s immunity for “open and obvious” dangers in line with the modern rule, the court held this to be at most harmless error where the dangerous condition … Upon establishing that any of such conditions may exist, the employer shall ascertain from the officer in charge of the vessel, if he is properly equipped and qualified so to evaluate, the condition of the work place with

Canaan Christian Church v. Montgomery Cnty.

335 F. Supp. 3d 758 · District Court, D. Maryland · Aug 15, 2018

In Moxley , the Court was addressing the defendant's motion to dismiss and the question of legislative immunity. … To the extent that the County Executive and staff are cloaked with legislative immunity, his motivations are also of no import.

Kralowec v. Prince George's County, Md.

503 F. Supp. 985 · District Court, D. Maryland · Nov 17, 1980

While the record establishes that plaintiff had no more than minimal supervisory experience, 18 defendant clearly did not consider such experience per se to be an unalterable prerequisite to the job. … Evidence in the record does not clearly establish that plaintiff had demonstrated such capacity to supervise to the selecting officer, Ogene.

Levitt & Sons, Inc. v. Prince George County Congress of Racial Equality

221 F. Supp. 541 · District Court, D. Maryland · Sep 17, 1963

In the Gully case, the Supreme Court said: “To bring a case within the statute, a right or immunity created by the Constitution or laws of the United States must be an element, and an essential one, of the plaintiff’s cause … Burlington Local No. 522, D.Vt., 106 F.Supp. 138 , “[t]his is clearly a case where the plaintiff has sought common law relief in the State Courts of the State of [Maryland].

Sneed v. Bankhead

District Court, D. Maryland · Jan 13, 2022

An officer enjoys the defense of qualified immunity when his conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” McDaniel v. … Qualified immunity requires the officer to demonstrate either that he did not violate the constitutional rights of the plaintiff, or that if he did, no clearly established law exists such that he would have known his conduct

The Ceylon Maru

266 F. 396 · District Court, D. Maryland · Jun 21, 1920

Ed. 962 , she was not immune from ordinary process upon a libel in rem against her. … New York City, supra, hold that the liability was incurred when the tort was committed, even although'the ship was then immune from arrest, and that but for such immunity it was enforceable against her.

Hillman v. Soroye

District Court, D. Maryland · Nov 16, 2021

actions were lawful in light of clearly established law.” … inmates attempted to harm him, were not shielded by qualified immunity.

Paylor

District Court, D. Maryland · Oct 30, 2025

“One such situation is when the individual defendants are entitled to qualified immunity.” … Evans’ constitutional rights, and that those rights were not clearly established, such that the Officers are entitled to qualified immunity.

Carter v. Lewis

District Court, D. Maryland · Sep 29, 2025

“Qualified immunity protects government officials from civil damages ina § 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

Carey v. Wolford

District Court, D. Maryland · May 5, 2023

“Qualified immunity shields government officials ‘who commit constitutional violations but who, in light of clearly established law, could reasonably believe that their actions were lawful.’” Hunter v. … Having found that Plaintiff’s allegations state a plausible claim under Counts II, IV, and V, Defendants’ qualified immunity claim turns on whether Plaintiff can show it was clearly established at the time Defendants stopped

Gibson v. United States Lines

74 F. Supp. 776 · District Court, D. Maryland · Dec 10, 1947

And I think it clearly inferable that the intention of the Legislature in passing the Act of 1941 was to make it clear that if foreign corporations did qualify or register with the State Tax Commission, they would not merely … The constitutional point of immunity from suit is not advanced in the motions.

Corporal v. Pennington

District Court, D. Maryland · Jul 30, 2021

If the evidence establishes a violation of a constitutional right, the second prong is to assess whether the right was “clearly established” at the time of the events at issue. Id. … If the right was not clearly established, the qualified immunity doctrine shields a defendant officer from liability.

Algave v. Mayor and City Council of Ocean City

5 F. Supp. 2d 354 · District Court, D. Maryland · May 21, 1998

The defendant has filed a motion for summary judgment. 1 For the reasons stated below, the Court finds that (1) the defendant is immune from suit with respect to the tort claims; and (2) the plaintiffs have failed to establish … The obligation to cover Algave’s expenses might clearly extend for more than a year. Consequently, the contract as envisioned by the plaintiffs would have had to be in writing in order to satisfy the statute of frauds.

Sp v. City of Takoma Park, Md.

950 F. Supp. 705 · District Court, D. Maryland · Jan 13, 1997

clear and imminent danger of hurting herself or others or that less restrictive alternatives to her commitment were not available. 1 Plaintiff’s claims against the individual officers have been dismissed on the ground of qualified … immunity.