Case law

Lafferty v. Theiss

District Court, D. Maryland · Aug 4, 2025

Qualified immunity protects the officer from liability unless the officer violated a constitutional right, and Plaintiff’s constitutional rights were clearly established. See Harlow v. … Officer Theiss did not violate any clearly established constitutional rights, and he is therefore entitled to qualified immunity. None of Plaintiff’s remaining claims or issues fare any better.

Niewenhous v. Burns

District Court, D. Maryland · Mar 31, 2021

If the officer demonstrates that the conduct in question did not violate a clearly established constitutional right, then the officer has qualified immunity from liability in the civil suit. Id. … Thus, even if the common nuisance statute were interpreted as plaintiffs argue, such an interpretation was not clearly established at the time of plaintiffs’ arrests, and defendants are entitled to qualified immunity.

Sheppard v. Aito

District Court, D. Maryland · Aug 18, 2021

Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, a state actor may be shielded from liability where his conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have … The Court concludes that on the current record viewed most favorably to Sheppard, qualified immunity does not bar the claims at this stage. First, the rights at issue are all well- defined and clearly established.

Glynn v. Edo Corp.

641 F. Supp. 2d 476 · District Court, D. Maryland · Jul 23, 2009

the person claiming immunity is in the jurisdiction.”); N. … This limited contact is clearly insufficient to demonstrate general jurisdiction.

Evans v. Technologies Applications & Services Co.

875 F. Supp. 1115 · District Court, D. Maryland · Feb 9, 1995

For the reasons set forth more clearly below, the Court concludes that TAS’s motion for summary judgment as to all counts must be granted. … She reasons that these allegations are in the complaint to provide “further evidence of discrimination” and “to establish a pattern and/or practice of illegal discrimination, to evidence motive or intent or to establish pretext

In re Zeno

850 F. Supp. 2d 546 · District Court, D. Maryland · Sep 12, 2011

Rule 701.1.a provides in pertinent part that “an attorney is qualified for admission to the Bar of this District if the attorney is, and continuously remains, a member in good standing of the highest court of any state (or … An attorney who is not a member of the Maryland Bar is not qualified for admission to the Bar of this District if the attorney maintains any law office in Maryland.”

White v. City of Annapolis

District Court, D. Maryland · Feb 3, 2020

clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … (2) that the right infringed upon was not clearly established at the time of the alleged violation.

Sibley v. Lutheran Hospital of Maryland, Inc.

709 F. Supp. 657 · District Court, D. Maryland · Jan 5, 1989

Apparently, the credentials committee decided that it would not consider plaintiff’s application until it had received word that he had established a Baltimore residence. … Plaintiff clearly cannot meet his burden of proof by the questionable negative inference which he seeks to draw from this fact. 7 .

Acacia Mutual Life Insurance Company v. United States

272 F. Supp. 188 · District Court, D. Maryland · Jul 26, 1967

Such ultimate facts are subject to the ‘clearly erroneous’ rule, cf. Commissioner [of Internal Revenue] v. … Since there was no competitive aspect involved in their selection, such expenditures clearly are not pri2;es or awards.

Little v. Pennsylvania R.

95 F. Supp. 631 · District Court, D. Maryland · Feb 9, 1951

Under the rules the employer was at liberty if in need of an electrician during the war not found qualified in the lower classes, to employ nonmemlbers of the Union if found qualified for the position. … There was further evidence that by the established custom of the business such a letter, if received, would have been answered and the employee probably invited to a personal conference.

Freeland v. Childress

177 F. Supp. 2d 422 · District Court, D. Maryland · Oct 22, 2001

As to his filing of criminal charges against Plaintiff Ffrench, Trooper Chil-dress asserts that he should be shielded by the doctrine of qualified immunity. The Court agrees. … Therefore, Trooper Childress is entitled to qualified immunity on this claim. B. State Law Violations Plaintiffs allege that throughout the investigation of Mr. Freeland, the search of 901 W.

Singleton v. Maryland Technology and Development Corporation

District Court, D. Maryland · Sep 8, 2022

This mechanism is also consistent with the Supreme Court’s direction that because it establishes not just a defense but a privilege from suit, sovereign immunity should be addressed at an early stage of the case. … Supp. 1171; State Gov’t § 12-104 “clearly limits the state’s waiver of immunity.”)

Achimbi

District Court, D. Maryland · Apr 30, 2026

With respect to the qualified immunity defense this Court observed that “[I]iberally construed, the complaint asserts that Owoeye walked away when Plaintiff began his pleas to release his finger from the door.” … In the absence of any evidence disputing it, and assuming that allegation is true, Owoeye was not entitled to qualified immunity. Jd. B.

Waugh Chapel South, LLC v. United Food & Commercial Workers Union Local 27

855 F. Supp. 2d 476 · District Court, D. Maryland · Feb 28, 2012

Established in the context of anti-trust litigation, Noerr-Pennington applies equally to labor litigation. Bryant v. … Military Dep’t of Miss., 597 F.3d 678, 691-92 (5th Cir.2010). 13 When the defendants raise NoerrPennington immunity in a motion to dismiss, the burden shifts to the plaintiffs to establish that the litigation in question

Eduardo Vazquez v. Maryland Port Administration

937 F. Supp. 517 · District Court, D. Maryland · Jun 1, 1995

Plaintiff, as an Hispanic of Puerto Rican descent, is clearly a member of a protected class. … Plaintiff has thus failed to establish the essential threshold element for his claim of discriminatory failure to promote, i.e., that he was qualified for the position in question.

Jones v. Lawson

District Court, D. Maryland · Aug 18, 2023

Qualified Immunity Lastly, the Supreme Court has explained that the “doctrine of 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 known.’”

Taylor v. Brown

928 F. Supp. 568 · District Court, D. Maryland · Dec 8, 1995

Plaintiff has also established that he was qualified for the position for which NIST was seeking applicants and that he was rejected for that position. … Even assuming, without deciding, that Plaintiff has established a prima facie case, the Defendant has clearly met its burden of presenting a legitimate nondiscriminatory reason for the failure to hire.

Sheppard v. Aito

District Court, D. Maryland · Aug 18, 2021

Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, a state actor may be shielded from liability where his conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have … The Court concludes that on the current record viewed most favorably to Holley, qualified immunity does not bar the claims at this stage. First, the rights at issue are all well- defined and clearly established.

Gough v. W.C.I.

District Court, D. Maryland · Jan 24, 2022

§ 12131 et seg, should be dismissed; and (5) they are entitled to qualified immunity. … immunity is not necessary.

Yang v. Lee

163 F. Supp. 2d 554 · District Court, D. Maryland · Aug 24, 2001

To achieve its purposes, the privilege is established as absolute. See id. at 370. … Lee, consequently, is immunized in the present case.