Case law

Saltz v. City of Frederick, Maryland

District Court, D. Maryland · May 10, 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.

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.

Picking v. STATE FINANCE CORPORATION

332 F. Supp. 1399 · District Court, D. Maryland · May 6, 1971

On Oct. 13, 1970, at the Hearing of said Motion and Answer to Show Cause Order, presided by Judge Maguire, it was clearly evident that the Motion to Dismiss was based on conspiracy for the benefit of State Finance Corp., … Chief Justice Warren wrote: * * * Few doctrines were more solidly established at common law than the immunity of judges from liability for damages for acts committed within their judicial jurisdiction, as this Court recognized

Bennett v. Foxwell of E.C.I.

District Court, D. Maryland · Jan 9, 2020

Qualified immunity “shields government officials from liability for civil damages, provided that their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights within the knowledge of a reasonable … A court deciding if qualified immunity applies must determine “whether a constitutional violation occurred,” and “whether the right violated was clearly established” at the time of the events in question. Tobey v.

Kleger v. Dorchester County, Maryland

District Court, D. Maryland · Jul 23, 2024

Young’s constitutional rights and certainly not any rights that were clearly established.” (ECF No. 41-1 at 7). … Young— dismissal on qualified immunity grounds is improper at this time.

Foldi v. Board of Education Montgomery County Public Schools

District Court, D. Maryland · Sep 17, 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 … Because it appears well-settled that alleged viewpoint discrimination amounts to a clearly established First Amendment violation, the Pride Members are not entitled to qualified immunity.

Melissa and Daniel Willey v. Board of Education of St. Mary's County

District Court, D. Maryland · Jun 5, 2023

Qualified immunity is an affirmative defense to § 1983 claims that “protects government officials ‘from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … established at the time of the shooting, and the defendants would be entitled to qualified immunity.

Federal Sav. and Loan Ins. Corp. v. Williams

599 F. Supp. 1184 · District Court, D. Maryland · Dec 5, 1984

The United States has not Waived its Immunity and thus a Counterclaim for Damages may not be Maintained It is a well settled principle of law that the United States, as sovereign, is immune from suit except where it has consented … The immunity conferred upon the agents’ actions is not limited by the purpose of the actions: The decisions have, indeed, always imposed as a limitation upon the immunity that the official’s act must have been within the

McReady v. Montgomery Community College

District Court, D. Maryland · Sep 30, 2020

Qualified immunity protects government officials performing discretionary functions from liability damages to the extent that “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which … Here, if the free speech rights Defendants allegedly violated were not clearly established at the time their challenged actions were taken, they are entitled to qualified immunity.

Nichols v. Comcast Cablevision of Maryland

84 F. Supp. 2d 642 · District Court, D. Maryland · Jan 19, 2000

Nichols has not established that Com-cast’s reasons are pretextual or that he was better qualified for the position. … A-6 at 57-58). 26 .With respect to Nichols’ claim that management would not meet with him, as noted above, Nichols clearly has not established a prima facie case.

McAdory v. Scientific Research Instruments, Inc.

355 F. Supp. 468 · District Court, D. Maryland · Feb 23, 1973

McAdory was informed that the company did not have a position available for which she was qualified. … Clearly the standards used by SRI are those qualifications needed by a wire-assembler who must work under a minimum of supervision and who must insure his own quality control.

Trantham v. Prince George's County, MD

District Court, D. Maryland · Feb 16, 2022

“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.” Wilson v. … Trantham’s Fourth Amendment rights were violated, Corporal Fulton and Officer Ige are entitled to qualified immunity because Defendants have established that their conduct did not violate clearly established statutory or

Boyd v. Gullett

64 F.R.D. 169 · District Court, D. Maryland · Aug 2, 1974

A history of such advocacy clearly did not meet the standard set by Sierra Club and therefore failed to establish standing. … Immunity Defendants contend that the supervisory officials in the first group of defendants should be dismissed on the grounds of sovereign immunity.

Wyckoff v. Maryland

522 F. Supp. 2d 730 · District Court, D. Maryland · Oct 1, 2007

Analysis Defendants have moved to dismiss all claims, arguing that: (1) Wyckoff has not established sex discrimination under Title VII against MDSP or § 1983 against Rich; (2)Wyckoff has not alleged sufficient facts to establish … The Court cautioned that reporting discriminatory behavior does not “immunize [an] employee from those petty slights or minor annoyances that often take place at work.”

Scott-Brown v. Cohen

220 F. Supp. 2d 504 · District Court, D. Maryland · Sep 2, 2002

(PL’s Opp’n 11-14) In addition, Plaintiff posits that Defendant was clearly on notice as to the claim, as evidenced by its request for dismissal in Defendant’s first motion to dismiss in March 2001. … In the case at hand, advanced sick leave is offered to DCAA employees on a regular basis, thereby qualifying as a benefit under Title VII.

Potts v. DiPaola

District Court, D. Maryland · Mar 2, 2022

Qualified Immunity Plaintiff’s federal constitutional claims against DiPaola and Smith are also barred by qualified immunity. … “If there exists a ‘legitimate question’ as to whether particular conduct violates a particular right then the right is not clearly established and qualified immunity applies.” Korb v.

Scott

District Court, D. Maryland · Feb 11, 2026

Plaintiff responds that Defendants are not entitled to Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity or qualified immunity because he “seeks prospective injunctive and declaratory relief to correct ongoing violations.” … “This provision clearly and unambiguously expresses congressional intent to abrogate the States’ Eleventh Amendment immunity with respect to claims brought under the ADA.” Constantine, 411 F.3d at 484.

Feller v. Feller

District Court, D. Maryland · Mar 20, 2020

’ actions violated clearly established law. … Application of qualified immunity under federal law is therefore appropriate. See Swanson v.

Subaqueous Exploration & Archaeology, Ltd. v. Unidentified, Wrecked & Abandoned Vessel

577 F. Supp. 597 · District Court, D. Maryland · Dec 21, 1983

The State Has Not Waived Its Sovereign Immunity. The Court finds that the State of Maryland has not waived its sovereign immunity throughout the course of these proceedings. … Amrhein clearly can protect his interests by instituting a separate proceeding under a stock fraud theory. 6 .

Malkani v. Clark Consulting, Inc.

727 F. Supp. 2d 444 · District Court, D. Maryland · Jul 30, 2010

Both sovereign immunity and standing lie at the heart of federal subject matter jurisdiction. Falwell, 198 F.Supp.2d at 771. “Whether [a] plaintiff has standing to sue is a threshold jurisdictional question.” … As Plaintiffs note, it is inappropriate to consider an affir *452 mative defense such as the statute of limitations question on a motion to dismiss unless "all facts necessary to [rule on] the affirmative defense ‘clearly