Case law

Meyers v. BALTIMORE COUNTY, MD.

814 F. Supp. 2d 552 · District Court, D. Maryland · Sep 28, 2011

The Defendants argue that no constitutional violation occurred and that, even if it did, they are entitled to qualified immunity. … If the right was not clearly established, the officers are entitled to qualified immunity notwithstanding the violation. Id. at 200-01, 121 S.Ct. 2151 .

Franklin v. Clark

454 F. Supp. 2d 356 · District Court, D. Maryland · Oct 2, 2006

Government officials performing discretionary functions are entitled to immunity from liability for civil damages to the extent that “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of … This assertion forms the basis of Clark’s qualified immunity defense.

Racetrac Petroleum, Inc. v. Prince George's County

601 F. Supp. 892 · District Court, D. Maryland · Jan 31, 1985

Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 , 102 S.Ct. 2727, 2739 , 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982), the Court held that qualified immunity shields from liability for civil damages discretionary conduct that “does not violate clearly established … Plaintiff argues that this qualified immunity standard is not met by the County Defendants because their actions in denying plaintiff’s special exception application violated the “clearly established law,” set forth in Community

Artiga Carrero v. Farrelly

270 F. Supp. 3d 851 · District Court, D. Maryland · Sep 20, 2017

United States) provide the relevant clearly established law for determining Officer Farrelly’s entitlement to immunity. … Haines, 45 F.3d 790, 798 (4th Cir. 1995) ("[A] court reviewing a qualified immunity defense should assess ... whether the alleged conduct violated law clearly established at the time the conduct occurred.”

Randolph v. Maryland

74 F. Supp. 2d 537 · District Court, D. Maryland · Nov 18, 1999

Qualified Immunity and Eighth Amendment Liability In response to Randolph’s claims, the Defendants assert qualified immunity. … Because this constitutional right was clearly established at the time of Randolph’s injury, the Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity.

Williams v. Wicomico County Board of Education

836 F. Supp. 2d 387 · District Court, D. Maryland · Jul 21, 2011

The doctrine of qualified immunity operates when the officials’ “conduct does not violate clearly established constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would know.” Harlow v. … As such, Defendants cannot establish qualified immunity on the face of the Complaint. Last, Defendants challenge the sufficiency of Mr.

McDaniel v. Arnold

898 F. Supp. 2d 809 · District Court, D. Maryland · Aug 21, 2012

Moreover, it is safe to say that, for purposes of qualified immunity, all of the foregoing principles have been clearly established at least since Whren was decided in 1996. … But, even if they did, qualified immunity would apply because a reasonable officer would not have understood that to be so in light of what was then the clearly established law.

Levinson-Roth v. Parries

872 F. Supp. 1439 · District Court, D. Maryland · Jan 5, 1995

The Court holds that the law “clearly established” this right in the factual context in which Deputy Popkin allegedly acted, thus depriving Deputy Popkin of the protection of qualified immunity. … Moreover, the law clearly established Levinson-Roth’s right to be free from strip searches absent any indication that she possessed weapons or contraband, thus depriving the county defendants of a qualified immunity defense

Pierpont v. Allen

415 F. Supp. 1386 · District Court, D. Maryland · Jul 19, 1976

This case can no longer be an adequate statement of law, since it accords to the prosecutor only a qualified immunity, and is clearly overruled by Inbler v. Pachtman, supra. In Hilliard v. … , he enjoys only qualified immunity.

Christian v. Cecil County, Md.

817 F. Supp. 1279 · District Court, D. Maryland · Mar 29, 1993

The defendants respond that they are protected by qualified official immunity. … In contrast to Maryland law, actual malice need not be established in order to defeat a qualified immunity defense under § 1983. Procunier v.

Popovic v. United States

997 F. Supp. 672 · District Court, D. Maryland · Feb 27, 1998

Qualified immunity, however, protects “government officials performing discretionary functions ... from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … The qualified immunity inquiry is at an end. Hadley enjoys that immunity and Popovic’s constitutional claim fails. VII.

Piechowicz v. United States

685 F. Supp. 486 · District Court, D. Maryland · Mar 29, 1988

In Harlow , Justice Powell wrote that a claim of qualified immunity rests upon the existence, if any, of the “objective reasonableness of an official’s conduct, as measured by reference to clearly established law.” … Case law is not, however, the sole source of clearly established law. Alleged violations of clearly established statutory rights may also bar a defense of qualified immunity. See Davis v.

Wolfe v. Routzahn

953 F. Supp. 2d 627 · District Court, D. Maryland · Jun 20, 2013

“Qualified immunity protects officers who commit constitutional violations but who, in light of clearly established law, could reasonably believe that their actions were lawful.” Henry v. … The qualified immunity analysis is a two-prong inquiry: first, the court asks whether a constitutional violation has occurred; and second, the court asks whether the right violated was clearly established. Id.

Waterman v. Batton

294 F. Supp. 2d 709 · District Court, D. Maryland · Dec 11, 2003

Clearly Established Right Although the plaintiffs have proffered evidence of a violation of a constitutional right, the defendant officers nonetheless are entitled to qualified immunity if that right was not clearly established … The plaintiffs have proffered sufficient evidence to establish a violation of Josh Waterman’s Fourth Amendment rights, and the defendant officers are not entitled to qualified immunity because these rights were clearly established

Peprah v. Williams

District Court, D. Maryland · Sep 17, 2020

Defendants contend that neither of these violations occurred and, even if they did, the officers are entitled to qualified immunity because any right that was potentially violated was not clearly established. … Qualified immunity is properly invoked where an officer’s conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” White v. Pauly, 137 S.

Goehring v. United States

870 F. Supp. 106 · District Court, D. Maryland · Dec 7, 1994

,” i.e. he is shielded from liability to the extent that his conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … That contention proves too much: all things are possible and if mere possibility is all that is required to establish a qualified immunity defense, law enforcement officials would have virtually unlimited license to use deadly

Dorsey v. Ruth

222 F. Supp. 2d 753 · District Court, D. Maryland · Sep 23, 2002

Further, the time frame established by Gruber’s statement does not clearly support Dorsey’s position. … Qualified Immunity Although Officer Ruth did not raise the issue, he enjoys qualified immunity against Dorsey’s suit.

Downey v. Collins

866 F. Supp. 887 · District Court, D. Maryland · Oct 12, 1994

Certainly this holding, which defines the outer boundary of a government employee’s qualified immunity, must also apply to state and local employees. … While the answer filed for Collins suggests a defense of qualified immunity, the motion itself only addresses sovereign immunity as to the liability of Anne Arundel County. 5 .

Cole v. PRINCE GEORGE'S COUNTY, MD.

798 F. Supp. 2d 739 · District Court, D. Maryland · Jul 26, 2011

to overcome Defendants’ qualified-immunity defense. … Furthermore, 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

Shadburne v. Dalkon Shield Trust

851 F. Supp. 712 · District Court, D. Maryland · May 19, 1994

The Fourth Circuit, recently summarized the law of qualified immunity: Qualified immunity shields a governmental official from liability for civil monetary damages if the officer’s “conduct does not violate clearly established … Under the facts of this case, defendant is clearly entitled to qualified immunity. IV.