Case law

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

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.

McGuire v. Amrein

101 F. Supp. 414 · District Court, D. Maryland · Nov 29, 1951

They also say that interception of such messages has not deprived the plaintiffs “of any right, privilege or immunity secured ,by the Constitution of the United States or by any Act of Congress providing for equal rights … But it is clearly not necessary to the.disposition of the instant case to decide this point, nor appropriate to express any opinion thereon.

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

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.

Saltz v. City of Frederick, Maryland

District Court, D. Maryland · Aug 16, 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. … Defendants assert that the individual defendants are entitled to qualified immunity because “their conduct did not violate clearly established law.” ECF 16-1 at 37.

Neal-Williams v. Daramy

District Court, D. Maryland · Jul 16, 2024

was clearly established at the time.’” … Owens, 575 U.S. 983 (2015), the Fourth Circuit reiterated: “Qualified immunity protects government officials from liability for ‘civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or

Van Slyke v. Northrop Grumman Corp.

115 F. Supp. 2d 587 · District Court, D. Maryland · Sep 18, 2000

Plaintiff is clearly a member of a protected class. … Such evidence does nothing to establish that Plaintiff is more qualified — the burden which plaintiff must satisfy at the pretext stage.

Essex Insurance v. Hoffman

168 F. Supp. 2d 547 · District Court, D. Maryland · Oct 15, 2001

This brochure clearly reveals that T-Up views its products as being useful in fighting diseases, including cancer. … Defendants also attempt to establish various links between Horan Goldman and Essex that they argue are suggestive of agency.

Marcas, L.L.C v. Board of County Commissioners

817 F. Supp. 2d 692 · District Court, D. Maryland · Sep 28, 2011

Marcas rejects the County’s suggestion that it qualifies as an “arm of the state.” “[Ojnly States and arms of the State possess immunity from suits authorized by federal law.” Northern Ins. Co. of New York v. … The first element is established.

Scott v. Montgomery County Government

164 F. Supp. 2d 502 · District Court, D. Maryland · Aug 30, 2001

The CBA clearly states that “all qualified employees with disabilities in need of reassignment” have the right “to be considered for vacancies at or below the grade level they hold.” … Taking the facts in the light most favorable to Scott, the record clearly establishes that Montgomery County acted in good faith.

Little v. Haddaway-Riccio

District Court, D. Maryland · Sep 26, 2019

But, an official is not entitled to qualified immunity if he deprived an individual of a constitutional right and that right was clearly established at the time of the violation. Id. … 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.”

Kasdon v. G. W. Zierden Landscaping, Inc.

512 F. Supp. 172 · District Court, D. Maryland · Apr 2, 1981

The Ninth Circuit view is clearly correct. Section 1444 expressly grants removal jurisdiction to federal courts of suits brought in state courts against the United States under § 2410. … Whether the United States may prevail either (a) because section 2410(a) is not applicable and the United States is immune from these suits or (b) if immunity has been waived by the United States, on the merits, does not

Clark v. Carder

District Court, D. Maryland · Aug 11, 2021

Daddysman separately argues that he is entitled to qualified immunity on this claim as his alleged conduct did not violate a clearly established constitutional right. … Where such conduct, if proven, would violate clearly established law, the Court will not grant summary judgment to Sgt. Daddysman based on qualified immunity. VI.

Dunbar v. Gilpin

District Court, D. Maryland · Mar 11, 2020

Qualified Immunity The correctional officers argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity on Dunbar’s □ Eighth Amendment Claim. … The correctional officers argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity because Dunbar had. no “clearly established” right to be free of their reasonable use of force: (Mot. at 17).

Reed v. Sears, Roebuck & Co.

934 F. Supp. 713 · District Court, D. Maryland · Aug 16, 1996

. § 5-311 (“sealed container defense”) immunizes it from liability as to all of plaintiffs’ claims. … Clearly, there are no restrictions or qualifying limitations placed on the nature of the action that may be dismissed once a seller has established the requisite elements of the defense.

Summerville v. Neckson

District Court, D. Maryland · Jun 14, 2024

was clearly established at the time.’” … Owens, 575 U.S. 983 (2015), the Fourth Circuit reiterated: “Qualified immunity protects government officials from liability for ‘civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional

MacY v. Trans World Airlines, Inc.

381 F. Supp. 142 · District Court, D. Maryland · Sep 3, 1974

Maryland has, in a number of circumstances, adopted the doctrine of qualified privilege. … Clearly Orrison is not a hero to Vance and there is little doubt Orrison considers Vance a low fellow. But, in these circumstances, this is not evidence of ill-will.” 262 Md. at 295 , 277 A.2d at 578 .

Perkins v. Smith

370 F. Supp. 134 · District Court, D. Maryland · Jan 28, 1974

Section 6(b) reads, in relevant part: . . . the jury judge shall deem any person qualified to serve on grand or petit juries unless he— (i) Is not constitutionally qualified to vote in this State in the county wherein the … There is a clearly definable minority of native born citizens who speak, write and understand only a language other than English.

Kent Island Joint Venture v. Smith

452 F. Supp. 455 · District Court, D. Maryland · Jun 8, 1978

These allegations are clearly insufficient to establish a taking in the constitutional sense. Goldblatt v. Town of Hempstead, supra; United States v. Central Eureka Mining Co., supra; Steel Hill Development, Inc. v. … It is well established that abstention by a federal court is the exception and not the rule.