Case law

Fontell v. Hassett

870 F. Supp. 2d 395 · District Court, D. Maryland · Jun 28, 2012

FDCPA Claims In order for Defendants to be liable for FDCPA violations, they must qualify as “debt collectors” under the FDCPA. … These facts alone are insufficient to establish that Defendants should have known their claims were time-barred from the time they initiated suit.

Hauk v. LVNV FUNDING, LLC

749 F. Supp. 2d 358 · District Court, D. Maryland · Nov 5, 2010

Wolpoff & Abramson, 485 F.3d 226, 230 (4th Cir.2007) (holding that “there is no blanket common law litigation immunity from the requirements of the FDCPA”). … LVNV remains free at a later stage to present evidence that the burden of the licensing requirement is clearly excessive to the local benefits.

Williams v. Baltimore County Detention Center

District Court, D. Maryland · Jul 29, 2024

was clearly established at the time.’” … violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’”

Ligon v. State of Md.

448 F. Supp. 935 · District Court, D. Maryland · Nov 23, 1977

Does the record establish that the District Council’s adoption of this sectional map amendment is discriminatory, arbitrary, capricious and illegal, and 3. … New Castle County, 293 F.Supp. 237 (D.Del. 1968) (absolute immunity); with, e. g., Nelson v. Knox, 256 F.2d 312, 315 (6th Cir. 1958) (qualified good faith privilege).

Featherson v. Montgomery County Public Schools

739 F. Supp. 1021 · District Court, D. Maryland · Jun 18, 1990

They have clearly articulated a legitimate non-dis criminatory reason for the decisions made by MCPS— the selection of • candidates on a race-neutral basis whom MCPS administrators deemed to be more qualified than plaintiff—and … To the contrary, the evidence establishes that if plaintiff had applied for any of the assistant positions in question, the persons who were in fact selected were better qualified than she.

Nolan

District Court, D. Maryland · Mar 27, 2026

“Qualified immunity protects government officials from civil damages in a § 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

Obi v. ANNE ARUNDEL COUNTY, MD

142 F. Supp. 2d 655 · District Court, D. Maryland · May 1, 2001

Obi makes four arguments in his attempt to show pretext: (1) Tait was not minimally qualified and Obi was clearly the most qualified candidate; (2) defendant violated DPW policies in the selection and interview process; ( … Obi’s apparent goal in making this claim is to show that because defendant selected someone who was not even minimally qualified for the position over an individual in a protected class who was clearly qualified, discriminatory

Cooper v. Doyle

District Court, D. Maryland · Oct 16, 2024

a court decides only the clearly-established prong” (quoting Tolan v. Cotton, 572 U.S. 650, 134 S.Ct. 1861, 1866, 188 L.Ed.2d 895 (2014))). … On appeal, the Fourth Circuit reversed in part,3 finding that the officer was entitled to qualified immunity. Id. at 407.

Neuberger Berman Real Estate Income Fund, Inc. v. Lola Brown Trust No. 1B

230 F.R.D. 398 · District Court, D. Maryland · Jun 23, 2005

A party claiming work product immunity must still establish the underlying nexus between the preparation of the document and the specific litigation.” Burton, 175 F.R.D. at 328 . … or immunity that is claimed.

Bomar v. Board of Education of Harford County

District Court, D. Maryland · Jul 20, 2021

this violation was of a clearly established right of which a reasonable person would have known.” … Nonetheless, “qualified immunity . . . will be upheld on a [Rule] 12(b)(6) motion only when the immunity is established on the face of the complaint,” Hafley v.

Koontz v. Kimberley

District Court, D. Maryland · Sep 17, 2019

Qualified immunity protects government officials from suit for damages when their conduct does not violate a “clearly established constitutional right.” Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 (1982). … The question of whether a right is clearly established is a question of law for the Court to decide. Id. at 318.

United States v. Balt. Police Dep't

282 F. Supp. 3d 897 · District Court, D. Maryland · Oct 2, 2017

(ECF No. 2-2 at 158-61, as modified by ECF No. 39; id. at 159 ("The selection of the Monitor shall be pursuant to a process jointly established by the City, BPD and DOJ....").) … Shantay Guy, that is well-established and respected in the Baltimore community.

Allen v. Baltimore County

91 F. Supp. 3d 722 · District Court, D. Maryland · Mar 17, 2015

Since at least 2000, Allen has had a serious medical condition — sarcoidosis—that has affected his immune system. … See Jacobs, 780 F.3d at 581 (concluding that plaintiff had established genuine dispute as to whether she was qualified when “a reasonable jury could conclude that [plaintiffs negative] behaviors were manifestations of [her

Bailey v. Anne Arundel County, Maryland

259 F. Supp. 2d 421 · District Court, D. Maryland · Mar 14, 2003

The record here establishes that it was because of the low score received by Bailey that he was not qualified for placement on the certified list of interviewees and that he was therefore not qualified for promotion to captain … On the record here, this Court concludes that this is not a case where the selectee’s qualifications are so clearly below those of the plaintiff that defendant’s proffered reason that the selectee was more qualified can be

Tserkis v. Baltimore County, Maryland

District Court, D. Maryland · Jan 19, 2021

Qualified immunity is an “‘immunity from suit rather than a mere defense to liability[.]’” Ussery v. Mansfield, 786 F.3d 332, 337 (4th Cir. 2015) (quoting Mitchell v. … However, “[b]ecause an official ‘who performs an act clearly established to be beyond the scope of his discretionary authority is not entitled to claim qualified immunity,’ the defendant bears the initial burden ‘of demonstrating

St. Louis University v. United States

182 F. Supp. 2d 494 · District Court, D. Maryland · Jan 25, 2002

Because Danny’s immune system was compromised, the attenuated polio virus contained in the vaccine was able to replicate fast enough to overcome his suppressed immune system, resulting in poliomyelitis. … The evidence clearly establishes that but for ... [the United States’s] negligence, the seeds would not have been used.” 774 F.Supp. at 958 .

O'CONNOR v. Keller

510 F. Supp. 1359 · District Court, D. Maryland · Mar 26, 1981

If a prisoner establishes a constitutional violation, prison officials sued in their individual capacity may be entitled to qualified immunity. Procunier v. … Further, qualified immunity is an affirmative defense with the defendant who asserts it having the burden of proof. McCray v.

Myers v. Town of Elkton, Maryland

District Court, D. Maryland · Feb 24, 2023

Plaintiffs assert that their right to be free from the unlawful seizure of their dog was clearly established at the time the shooting took place. (ECF No. 42 at 28). … Accordingly, Officer Devine has not established that he is entitled to qualified immunity.

Host Marriott Corp. v. United States

113 F. Supp. 2d 790 · District Court, D. Maryland · Aug 8, 2000

Moreover, “ ‘an income tax deduction is a matter of legislative grace and ... the burden of clearly showing the right to the claimed deduction is on the taxpayer.’ ” INDOPCO, Inc. v. … The liability for federal income tax deficiency interest arises out of 26 U.S.C. § 6601 (a) under a rate established by § 6621. The liability for workers’ compensation payments arises out of various state laws.

Walker v. City of Salisbury

170 F. Supp. 2d 541 · District Court, D. Maryland · Apr 4, 2001

Although these causes of action clearly arise under state law, plaintiff has chosen to present them to this federal court. … Plaintiff has not alleged facts establishing that defendants violated his right to equal protection of the law.