Case law

Lizarbe v. Rondon

642 F. Supp. 2d 473 · District Court, D. Maryland · Feb 26, 2009

Rivera Rondon has filed a Motion to Dismiss, arguing (1) ouster of the Court’s jurisdiction by reason of his deportation back to Peru; (2) statute of limitations; (3) immunity from suit under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities … Whether Rivera Rondon is Immune From Suit Under the FSIA A.

Ensminger v. Towson University

District Court, D. Maryland · Feb 5, 2024

On November 18, 2019, OIIE denied Plaintiff’s appeal for the purported reason that Plaintiff did not clearly label his appeal. Id. … “Once service has been contested, the plaintiff bears the burden of establishing the validity of service pursuant to Rule 4.” Id.

Freeman v. Beverly

District Court, D. Maryland · May 27, 2020

But clearly Title VII does not allow suit on this basis. See Jaffer v. Nat’l Caucus & Ctr. on Black Aged, Inc., 296 F. … Holmes argues that dismissal is warranted because the Complaint does not aver that she played any role in Freeman’s non-selection, and alternatively that she enjoys qualified immunity. ECF No. 25-1 at 4–5.

Causey v. Balog

929 F. Supp. 900 · District Court, D. Maryland · Jun 17, 1996

To establish his prima facie case for failure to promote, Causey must show that: (1) he is a member of a protected group; (2) he sought the position in question; (3) he was qualified; and (4) he was rejected under circumstances … Causey must show “actual malice” in order to overcome this qualified privilege.

G & M Oil Co. v. Glenfed Financial Corp.

782 F. Supp. 1078 · District Court, D. Maryland · Dec 21, 1989

The applicable standards for analyzing a motion for summary judgment under Rule 56 are well-established. … unable to clearly address these theories in the motion for summary judgment.

McKnight v. Malone

District Court, D. Maryland · Mar 17, 2025

In any event, “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 … To overcome an official’s qualified immunity defense, a plaintiff must establish: “(1) that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) that the right was ‘clearly established’ at the time of the

Jno. McCall Coal Co. v. United States

248 F. Supp. 253 · District Court, D. Maryland · Dec 27, 1965

Plaintiff did not qualify as a “regular dealer” within the meaning of § 1(a) of the Act, 41 U.S.C.A. § 35 (a), *255 because it did not have any storage yards or other facilities in which it stocked and from which it sold … As to both interpretations which plaintiff’s contentions question, the interpretations followed by the Secretary of Labor, act* ing through the administrator, are reasonable, if not clearly correct.

Shakur v. Officer Portmess

District Court, D. Maryland · Nov 10, 2021

Qualified Immunity Portmess argues he is entitled to qualified immunity and that summary judgment is appropriate on that basis. … Further, the qualified immunity defense is unavailing both because the constitutional right was well-established at the time of the incidents at issue and because there exists a material dispute of fact regarding whether

Martell v. Sparrows Point Scrap Processing, LLC

214 F. Supp. 2d 527 · District Court, D. Maryland · Aug 12, 2002

The law is well-settled that to establish a violation of the ADA in this failure-to-hire case, Martell must show (1) that he had a disability; (2) that he was qualified for the job of crane operator; and (3) that his disability … The word ‘substantial’ thus clearly precludes impairments that interfere in only a minor way with the performance of manual tasks from qualifying as disabilities.”).

Kemplen v. Maryland

295 F. Supp. 8 · District Court, D. Maryland · Jan 14, 1969

“May”, “if any” scarcely suggest that at least as of the date of the Whittington decision the Supreme Court itself was of the belief that Gault clearly established new procedures applicable to waiver of jurisdiction proceedings … Yet Justice Brandéis even more boldly characterized the immunity from unjustifiable intrusions upon privacy, which was denied retroactive enforcement in Linkletter, as ‘the most comprehensive of rights and the right most

Fkonimos v. Ribicoff

208 F. Supp. 492 · District Court, D. Maryland · Mar 2, 1962

The court feels it unnecessary to review in any detail the findings which are set forth quite clearly in the Hearing Examiner’s report. … There is a record under the 9th position, Immigration Records, which would fix the applicant’s date of birth at a time which would not qualify her even now to receive benefits; even under that she would not be 62 years of

Maryland Casualty Co. v. United States

63 F. Supp. 629 · District Court, D. Maryland · Nov 23, 1945

It is true, of course, that the United States is immune from suit unless Congress has otherwise clearly provided. United States v. Shaw, 309 U.S. 495 , 60 S.Ct. 659 , 84 L.Ed. 888 ; United States v. … There is a further complication that confronts the plaintiff in this case, in that the payment it made was in consequence of a compromise of litigation; and there are no other facts appearing to qualify or further explain

Burch v. Snider

461 F. Supp. 598 · District Court, D. Maryland · Dec 4, 1978

In any event, using the analysis in Singleton , the Attorney .General does not qualify to assert Mr. Baylin’s rights. … The Novotny court rejected the argument that the defendants were immune merely because their actions were “taken in the course of their duties” as officers and directors. Id. at 1257 .

Adeyemi v. State of MD

District Court, D. Maryland · May 5, 2021

Moreover, “denying employment opportunities to a job applicant or employee who is an otherwise qualified individual with a disability” may qualify as “discrimination against a qualified individual on the basis of disability … Dep’t of Public Safety and Correctional Services, 926 F.3d 97 (4th Cir. 2019), stating, id. at 100: “The Supreme Court ‘has drawn on principles of sovereign immunity to construe the Amendment to establish that an unconsenting

Phoenix American Life Insurance v. Devan

308 B.R. 237 · District Court, D. Maryland · Apr 12, 2004

. § 549 (a) in accordance with a long line of cases establishing that what are commonly called “policy loans” are not, in fact, loans. See, e.g., Bd. of Assessors of the Parish of Orleans v. New York Life Ins. … April 6, 1994) (applying clearly erroneous standard to bankruptcy court ruling based on undisputed facts). 4 .

EEOC v. Freeman

961 F. Supp. 2d 783 · District Court, D. Maryland · Aug 9, 2013

Proof of disparate impact requires reliable and accurate statistical analysis performed by a qualified expert. … Third, the EEOC has not clearly identified what it hopes to accomplish through the filing of a sur-reply.

Carroll v. United States

625 F. Supp. 1 · District Court, D. Maryland · Jun 18, 1982

In other cases, the government has challenged the existence of so-called “chronic” or “relapsing” GBS. 3 In this particular case, the scientific evidence clearly establishes that one of the many forms of GBS, although relatively … Once again, the proof has not been sufficient to establish plaintiff’s entitlement to this item of damages.

Podberesky v. Kirwan

764 F. Supp. 364 · District Court, D. Maryland · May 15, 1991

The causation element is also clearly satisfied in this case. … However, assuming that § 1981 covers scholarship benefits (and assuming that § 1981 extends to states) [3] , Podberesky has failed to establish that defendants have waived their Eleventh Amendment immunity.

Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Apex Oil Co.

113 F. Supp. 3d 807 · District Court, D. Maryland · Oct 20, 2015

Att’y Gen. 69, at 1 (1992) (describing § 4-419 as establishing “immunity from liability ... [for] a responder who renders care, assistance, or advice in an unsuccessful attempt to prevent a discharge of oil”). … Chevron's additional argument that the statutes under which it brings claims establish a duty of care is meritless.

Jones v. Reichert Jung, Inc.

211 F. Supp. 2d 661 · District Court, D. Maryland · Jul 26, 2002

These two affidavits conclusively establish that neither Bukowski nor Bernacki is qualified to give expert testimony in this case. 3 In arguing that both Bukowski and Ber-nacki should be permitted to testify as experts in … Since both Bukowski and Bernaeki are not qualified to testify as experts in this case, defendant’s motion to preclude will be granted. 4 (b) Summary Judgment In the absence of competent expert testimony establishing that