Case law

Fitzgerald v. Watkins

District Court, D. Maryland · Nov 16, 2023

Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, however, government officials are shielded from liability for monetary damages under § 1983 “so long as ‘their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … To determine whether an official is entitled to qualified immunity, courts conduct a two-prong analysis that asks whether: (1) “the official violated a statutory or constitutional right”; and (2) “the right was ‘clearly

Fields v. Lyng

705 F. Supp. 1134 · District Court, D. Maryland · Sep 29, 1988

New York University, 666 F.2d 761, 775 (2d Cir.1981); Carty, 623 F.Supp. at 1185 , and since defendant is clearly entitled to summary judgment on other grounds, this Court will refrain from deciding whether plaintiff is handicapped … Nevertheless, in order to establish a complete record in the event of an appeal, this Court will address the question of whether, assuming that Fields is a qualified handicap, ARS failed to accommodate his handicap reasonably

Green v. Dean

District Court, D. Maryland · Aug 28, 2024

Qualified Immunity Defendants assert in a cursory manner that they are entitled to qualified immunity from liability because they did not violate Green’s constitutional rights. (ECF No. 18-1 at 13-14.) … in light of clearly established law.”

Burton

District Court, D. Maryland · Dec 12, 2025

Qualified immunity “protects government officials ‘from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have … “To overcome qualified immunity, a plaintiff must show ‘(1) that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) that the right was “clearly established” at the time of the challenged conduct.’”

Grace Ex Rel. Grangers Mut. Ins. v. United States

76 F. Supp. 174 · District Court, D. Maryland · Mar 5, 1948

But this Statute is in my opinion clearly inapplicable to the present situation. … These cases are therefore not clearly in point in the instant case.

Krell v. Braightmeyer

District Court, D. Maryland · Nov 19, 2019

Defendants assert they are entitled to qualified immunity on the deliberate indifference claim—and the related equal protection claim—because there is no clearly established law suggesting Plaintiff was suffering … For the reasons explained above and in the Court’s prior opinion, there is clearly established law demonstrating Plaintiffs claim is viable, and as such, the Court declines to modify its qualified immunity holdings with

DeShazor v. Barb

District Court, D. Maryland · Sep 8, 2020

Qualified Immunity Finally, Defendants make the blanket assertion that they are all entitled to summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds. … Qualified immunity is a defense that shields government officials from liability “unless (1) they violated a federal statutory or constitutional right, and (2) the unlawfulness of their conduct was ‘clearly established

Lundregan v. Housing Opportunities Commission

District Court, D. Maryland · Apr 24, 2024

that the official’s conduct violated a federal right; and (2) whether such right was “clearly established” as of the time of the alleged violation. … It is also fair argument that Lundregan’s right to be free from discrimination based on her disability was at all relevant times clearly established. In Corey 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.

United States v. Frankfeld

101 F. Supp. 449 · District Court, D. Maryland · Jan 25, 1952

No particular method of selection is prescribed by the statutes; but by judicial decisions it has been established that in selecting names of citizens qualified for jury service, the constitutional principles require that … Harry West, and former Commissioners, clearly shows that there has been no discrimination, either intentional or unconscious, against any class of qualified citizens.

Graham

District Court, D. Maryland · Feb 24, 2026

| Qualified Immunity Finally, Officer Warr argues that she is entitled to qualified immunity. … was clearly established at the time.’”

Barnes v. MONTGOMERY COUNTY, MD.

798 F. Supp. 2d 688 · District Court, D. Maryland · Jul 18, 2011

It is clearly established that even if Lagos was acting pursuant to an ulterior motive, namely that Plaintiff was in a location with a history of criminal activity, and Defendant was exercising a bias against Plaintiff because … It has been clearly established that Article 24 protects the same rights as the Fourteenth Amendment, and Article 26 protects the same rights as those protected under the Fourth Amendment. See Hayes v.

Bar Association of Baltimore City v. Posner

391 F. Supp. 76 · District Court, D. Maryland · Jan 28, 1975

Even assuming that the petitioner in removal properly alleges a potential denial of “equal civil rights,” he still must either specify a present denial of those rights or clearly predict an inevitable denial “by reason of … he suffers discrimination because he is Jewish, and since there is an abundance of other defects in his claim of removal jurisdiction this court need not, and does not, address the question of whether anti-semitism could qualify

Lemp v. Majkrzak

District Court, D. Maryland · Jan 6, 2025

Defendants argue that these claims are futile because the search warrant was supported by probable cause and, alternatively, that the officers have qualified immunity. ECF No. 35 at 6–11. … “Qualified immunity protects government officials who commit constitutional violations but who, in light of clearly established law, could have reasonably believed that their actions were lawful.” Knibbs v.

Meyler v. Mayor and City Council of Ocean City

District Court, D. Maryland · Jun 5, 2024

his Constitutional rights and that, even if there were any such violations, Defendants are nevertheless entitled to qualified immunity because the rights were not clearly established at the time of the July … immunity as his rights were not clearly established at the time of the arrest.

Perkins v. University of Maryland School of Nursing

District Court, D. Maryland · May 12, 2025

’s Eleventh Amendment immunity.” … immunity under the Eleventh Amendment.5 Sovereign immunity deprives this Court of jurisdiction to hear Perkins’ MFEPA claims.

Gough v. Semexan

District Court, D. Maryland · Jun 9, 2022

An official who commits a constitutional violation is immune under the doctrine of qualified immunity if he 5 As noted above, state personnel are also immune from suit under the MTCA for acts made without gross negligence … The court follows a two-part test to determine whether an officer is immune under qualified immunity: (1) whether a constitutional violation occurred and (2) whether the right violated was clearly established such that

Briddell v. Chester

206 F. Supp. 2d 733 · District Court, D. Maryland · Jun 10, 2002

If those three conditions are met, the public official enjoys a qualified immunity in the absence of “malice.” Baltimore Police Dep’t v. … There can be no dispute that all three conditions for public official immunity have been met. Id.

Perkins v. Donoway

District Court, D. Maryland · Sep 29, 2022

Qualified Immunity The defendants assert they are qualifiedly immune from the § 1983 claim. … In an exercise of this discretion, the Court considers only the second prong of the qualified immunity analysis: whether the constitutional right was clearly established at the time of the alleged misconduct.

Day v. Patapsco & Back Rivers Railroad

504 F. Supp. 1301 · District Court, D. Maryland · Jan 15, 1981

To establish a prima facie case of discrimination under McDonnell Douglas, a plaintiff is required to show, inter alia, that he was qualified for the promotion for which the employer was seeking applicants. … The evidence in this case clearly establishes that the present Patapsco seniority system is identical, in all relevant respects, to the seniority syste ms which existed at the Railroad prior to adoption of Title VII.