Case law

Maryland Port Administration v. SS American Legend

453 F. Supp. 584 · District Court, D. Maryland · Jul 3, 1978

This testimony establishes a factual dispute as to whether U.S. Lines was negligent in not suspending operations and whether it had a duty to suspend operations. … Lines in this case is clearly sufficient (under a Rule 56 motion) to support a finding that the accident was caused by a vessel within the meaning of the Admiralty Extension Act.

Hartford Ins. Co. of Midwest v. American Automatic Sprinkler Systems, Inc.

23 F. Supp. 2d 623 · District Court, D. Maryland · Oct 15, 1998

Consequently, the parties’ only disagreement 'is whether the statute bestows immunity on American. … Since American pled the defense of limitations in its answer, this defense clearly has not been waived.

Langerman v. Thompson

155 F. Supp. 2d 490 · District Court, D. Maryland · Aug 17, 2001

Plaintiff establishes a prima facie case of race and sex-based discrimination. He is a white male. … He applied for the supervisory specialist position and was qualified for it as the QRB rated him highly qualified and selected him to interview for the position.

Serio v. Baltimore County

115 F. Supp. 2d 509 · District Court, D. Maryland · Jul 20, 2000

This remaining interest — whether it be called ownership, title, or simply a non-possessory right — qualifies as a property interest protected by constitutional due process 7 , thereby allowing Serio to establish the first … The language of 445B clearly states that disposition of firearms seized pursuant to the statute may be disposed of only after a finding of guilt.

Oken v. Nuth

64 F. Supp. 2d 488 · District Court, D. Maryland · Aug 30, 1999

The State responds that this issue is procedurally defaulted and, alternatively, that the decision of the Maryland Court of Appeals did not involve an unreasonable application of clearly established Federal law as determined … qualified as an expert in this case.

Allen v. Brodie

573 F. Supp. 87 · District Court, D. Maryland · Oct 20, 1983

“To have a property interest in a benefit, a person clearly must have more than an abstract need or desire for it. He must have a more than unilateral expectation of it. … He admits that he is unable to afford the City owned property, and acknowledges that he is unable to meet the criteria that the City has established to qualify for a loan.

Diggs v. Dupree

District Court, D. Maryland · Jul 16, 2024

“Qualified immunity bars § 1983 actions against government officials in their individual capacities ‘unless (1) they violated a federal statutory or constitutional right, and (2) the unlawfulness of their conduct was clearly … County Defendants fail to show that the unlawfulness of Dupree’s conduct, as alleged, was not clearly established at the time of the incident.

Collins v. Baucom

District Court, D. Maryland · Jul 10, 2019

Qualified Immunity The individual Medical Defendants move to dismiss the Complaint on the basis of qualified immunity. … Moreover, even if the individual Medical Defendants were entitled to assert qualified immunity, the right at issue in this case is a clearly established right.

Gray v. Kern

143 F. Supp. 3d 363 · District Court, D. Maryland · Apr 13, 2016

At the time of this incident, the LGTCA clearly stated that “the liability of a local government may not exceed $200,000 3 per an individual claim.” Md. Code Ann. Cts. & Jud. Proc. § 5-303(a)(l) (2007). … In the context of public official immunity, “[actual] malice is established by proof that the defendant-officer ‘intentionally performed an act without legal justification or excuse, but with an evil or rancorous motive influenced

Artis v. Wolford

District Court, D. Maryland · Nov 18, 2021

The doctrine of qualified immunity shields government officials “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which … Defendants argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity as to all claims because “[t]he evidence has established that the Defendants have not violated any clearly established constitutional right of which a reasonable

Moreno v. University of Maryland

420 F. Supp. 541 · District Court, D. Maryland · Jul 13, 1976

The claims in this case are clearly not insubstantial. See Vlandis v. Kline, supra; Hooban v. Boling, 503 F.2d 648 (6th Cir. 1974); Kelm v. Carlson, 473 F.2d 1267 (6th Cir. 1973); Jagnandan v. … That case dealt with whether Patrick Cassidy, who had “arrived in this country only recently” (id., at 652) as a temporary visitor for 3 months only, could qualify under New York law to be appointed as administrator of his

Young v. Morgan

District Court, D. Maryland · Jun 8, 2020

Sergeant Fisher is Not Entitled to Qualified Immunity Government officials are entitled to rely upon qualified immunity when “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of … Young’s clearly established rights under the Eighth Amendment.

The Estate of Jamaal Taylor v. Baltimore County

District Court, D. Maryland · Feb 3, 2025

Second, they contend that they are entitled to qualified immunity as to the federal excessive force claim in Count I because their use of reasonable force did not violate a clearly established right.8 (ECF No. 42-1 at … The Court notes that Plaintiffs also cannot overcome the “clearly established” prong of the qualified immunity analysis.

Child Evangelism Fellowship of Maryland, Inc. v. Montgomery County Public Schools

368 F. Supp. 2d 416 · District Court, D. Maryland · Mar 24, 2005

Although CEF disputes that MCPS is a state agency entitled to the defense of sovereign immunity, the Court is satisfied that extensive case law establishes just the contrary: MCPS is a state agency which enjoys sovereign … immunity.

Booth v. Prince George's County

66 F.R.D. 466 · District Court, D. Maryland · Jan 23, 1975

While public officials do possess certain qualified immunity, at this preliminary stage it would be premature to determine the degree to which the officials named here may draw the cloak of qualified immunity around themselves … In the present case there clearly has never been a Rule 23(c) certification. The named plaintiff was dismissed for lack of standing at the outset.

Higginbotham v. Brauer

District Court, D. Maryland · Aug 7, 2020

“Qualified immunity shields police officers who commit constitutional violations from liability when, based on ‘clearly established law,’ they ‘could reasonably believe that their actions … The qualified immunity analysis requires courts to conduct a two-step inquiry, asking, in either order: “(1) whether a constitutional violation occurred; and (2) whether the right was clearly established

Fleming v. United States

200 F. Supp. 3d 603 · District Court, D. Maryland · Aug 1, 2016

To consider a statute of limitations defense at the Rule 12(b)(6) stage, “all facts necessary to the affirmative defense [must] ‘clearly appear[ ] on the face of the complaint.’ ” Id. … “To establish a continuing violation, a plaintiff must establish that the ‘ “illegal act was a fixed and continuing practice.” ’ ” Greene v. U.S.

Nicholson v. State of Maryland

District Court, D. Maryland · Jul 14, 2023

Moreover, these rules are clearly established, both by the Supreme Court and the Fourth Circuit. … Fourth Circuit case law does not clearly establish that Defendant’s order to Plaintiff to leave the area constituted a seizure.

Lewis v. Caraballo

District Court, D. Maryland · Sep 29, 2022

Qualified immunity is an affirmative defense that shields government officials from liability for civil damages in a § 1983 suit as long as “their conduct does not violate clearly … Thus, the factual disputes preclude granting Trooper Caraballo qualified immunity at this stage.

Gladhill v. Washington County Board of Education

District Court, D. Maryland · Mar 22, 2024

conduct was clearly established at the time.’” … Courts employ a two-prong inquiry to determine whether a government official enjoys qualified immunity: “(1) whether the official violated a constitutional right; and if so (2) whether the right was ‘clearly established