Case law

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.

Jackson v. Clark

564 F. Supp. 2d 483 · District Court, D. Maryland · Jul 10, 2008

The district court denied defendants’ motion to dismiss the due process claim on qualified immunity grounds and upon defendants’ interlocutory appeal, the Fourth Circuit affirmed the denial of the motion to dismiss. … The court concluded that certain statutory provisions relating to the reporting of criminal activity produce “a clearly definable public policy goal” whereby “the Legislature sought to protect those witnesses who report suspected

Orenge v. Veneman

218 F. Supp. 2d 758 · District Court, D. Maryland · Sep 10, 2002

Plaintiff can clearly satisfy the first two elements of the prima facie case. Plaintiff can also satisfy the third element because she, undisputedly, made the "best qualified list" for consideration for promotion. … Because Plaintiff never ultimately demonstrates that she was more qualified for the promotion than Rothenheber, she fails to establish pretext.

Kopicki v. Fitzgerald Automotive Family Employee Benefits Plan

121 F. Supp. 2d 467 · District Court, D. Maryland · Nov 22, 2000

The insurer denied coverage for the entire HDC/ABMT treatment as a procedure “relating to” to the clearly excluded ABMT. Id. … Although Defendants argue that the only procedure requested involved participation in the clinical trial, the letter clearly stated that Mr.

Nelson v. Collins

455 F. Supp. 727 · District Court, D. Maryland · May 17, 1978

Whether the constitutional right which the plaintiffs claim to have been infringed was clearly established at the time is important to a determination of the defendants’ knowledge. Procunier v. … Quite clearly, the constitutional principles involved in this case have not been so clearly established at the time of infringement that the defendants could be charged with knowledge that their conduct was a violation of

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.

Allen v. Prince George's County, Md.

538 F. Supp. 833 · District Court, D. Maryland · May 4, 1982

Insofar as promotional practices are concerned, County law establishes that internals will be given a preference for the filling of the vacancy, if there are at least six qualified internals. … Moreover, the evidence of this sort which was presented, like that presented by plaintiffs Allen and Vaughns themselves, was clearly insubstantial.

Wineland v. County Commissioners of Dorchester County

892 F. Supp. 719 · District Court, D. Maryland · May 5, 1995

Additionally, the short test provisions clearly refer to “primary duty.” … Defendants have also raised a claim that they are immune from Count III because the termination resulted from the exercise of a governmental function.

Nouse v. Nouse

450 F. Supp. 97 · District Court, D. Maryland · Mar 30, 1978

Assuming without deciding that all the above requirements are satisfied and that a sex-based conspiracy qualifies as an “otherwise class-based invidiously discriminatory animus” so as to meet the intent requirement of the … Clearly, provision of a criminal penalty does not necessarily preclude implication of a private cause of action for damages. [Citations omitted.]

CareFirst, Inc. v. Taylor

235 F. Supp. 3d 724 · District Court, D. Maryland · Jan 9, 2017

The decision established a procedure for public comment. (I'd, Ex. C at 19-20, ECF No. 2-6.) … In general, official-capacity lawsuits constitute actions against the state and are barred by principles of sovereign immunity, but.

Bryant v. Better Business Bureau of Greater Maryland, Inc.

923 F. Supp. 720 · District Court, D. Maryland · Apr 4, 1996

The record clearly demonstrates that neither Kershner nor Hogan undertook any genuine analysis of the TTY device. … This omission was clearly intentional and meant to have an impact on the manner in which the ADA is applied.

Neal-Willams v. Montgomery County Correctional Facility

District Court, D. Maryland · Aug 26, 2022

“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 … To overcome a claim of qualified immunity from a § 1983 claim, there must be a showing that (1) the government official violated a federally protected right of the plaintiff; and (2) the identified right was clearly established

Pettiford v. United States

587 F. Supp. 2d 709 · District Court, D. Maryland · Nov 24, 2008

Pettiford’s 2001 Conviction for Second Degree Assault Pettiford also contends that the Government failed to establish that his 2001 conviction for second degree assault qualifies as an ACCA predicate. … Furthermore, the true test copy is sufficiently reliable to establish the fact of conviction. 8 .

Murphy-Taylor v. Hofmann

968 F. Supp. 2d 693 · District Court, D. Maryland · Sep 12, 2013

Clearly, termination of employment satisfies the second element. See Lettieri v. Equant Inc., 478 F.3d 640 , 650 n. 2 (4th Cir.2007). . … In addition to giving State personnel immunity from suit for non-malicious, non-grossly-negligent torts, the MTCA waives the State’s sovereign immunity for such torts, and thereby " 'substitutes the liability of the State

United States v. Hopps

215 F. Supp. 734 · District Court, D. Maryland · Dec 20, 1962

Van Galder, clearly an alias and equally clearly one of the Hopps corps. … In October 1957 a $200,000 trust fund was established with a Nevada bank to secure International’s American obligations.

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.

Maryland Minority Contractor's Ass'n v. Maryland Stadium Authority

70 F. Supp. 2d 580 · District Court, D. Maryland · Sep 30, 1998

for summary judgment on the issues of qualified immunity and discriminatory motive. 2 Before filing their opposition, the plaintiffs moved for continuance under Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(f), alleging they could not respond to the … Clearly then, the injury-in-fact prong of the standing inquiry has not been met.

Bonomo v. National Duckpin Bowling Congress, Inc.

469 F. Supp. 467 · District Court, D. Maryland · Mar 23, 1979

No bowling establishment may conduct a sanctioned event unless a tournament director or executive of the NDBC is actively in charge of the event. … As the court stated in Greenfield, 4 EPD at p. 5932, the statutory definition clearly describes the activities of an employment agency in the traditional and generally accepted sense of that term, that is, any agency in the

Dickson v. United States

240 F. Supp. 583 · District Court, D. Maryland · Apr 2, 1965

The language of the decedent’s will does not clearly and unambiguously establish that decedent’s intention was to give a bequest to his wife conditioned upon her continued life as the Government argues. … The language of the will clearly and unambiguously establishes that the interest was limited only by the time of final accounting and settlement.

Estate of Alcalde v. Deaton Specialty Hospital Home, Inc.

133 F. Supp. 2d 702 · District Court, D. Maryland · Mar 5, 2001

Plaintiffs amended complaint clearly complies with the requirements of “notice pleading.” Conley, 355 U.S. at 47 , 78 S.Ct. 99 . … D Defendants contend that plaintiff failed to submit a timely certificate of qualified expert to HCAOM.