Case law

Benning

District Court, D. Maryland · Sep 4, 2026

immunity. … The FSLA thus covers “even those American workers ‘who might not qualify as [employees] under a strict application of traditional agency law principles.’” Chavez- Deremer v. Med.

Donald B. Rice Tire Co. v. Michelin Tire Corp.

483 F. Supp. 750 · District Court, D. Maryland · Jan 30, 1980

While Michelin sales personnel do not qualify as economically distinct entities with whom defendant could conspire or contract, Fuchs Sugars & Syrups, Inc. v. … Although the evidence clearly established that Michelin is a premium tire with a reputation for durability and safety, these attributes are insufficient under the functional interchangeability test that serves as a proxy

Canter v. Shoppert

District Court, D. Maryland · Mar 9, 2020

Plaintiff has also sued Defendants Barrett, Schoppert, and Zeis in their individual capacities, however; the individual Defendants will only be immune from suit if they are entitled to qualified immunity. … Government officials are generally entitled to qualified immunity “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”

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

Lewis v. Bethlehem Steel Corp.

440 F. Supp. 949 · District Court, D. Maryland · Oct 19, 1977

In fact, it was conceded that the plaintiff was not so qualified. … This is clearly erroneous. Lewis had not even passed the Electrical Helpers Test when he applied for the Shop Electrician position.

St. Charles Associates, Ltd. v. United States

671 F. Supp. 1074 · District Court, D. Maryland · Oct 14, 1987

On July 21, 1983, DOI issued a determination that each of the seven buildings, including the College Building, qualified as a “certified historic structure.” … Such plans would then be reviewed for conformity to the “Standards for Rehabilitation” established by the regulation. 36 C.F.R. § 67.6 (c) (1981).

Wallace v. Patterson

District Court, D. Maryland · Mar 31, 2022

Qualified Immunity (Counts I, IV, V) The individual defendants next argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity with respect to the Wallace’s Due Process § 1983 claim (Count I) … Pursuant to the doctrine of qualified immunity, even if a public official engages in unconstitutional conduct, he “may nevertheless be shielded from liability for civil damages if [his] actions did not violate clearly established

John W. Johnson, Inc. v. Atlantic States Construction Co.

276 F. Supp. 379 · District Court, D. Maryland · Nov 9, 1967

Venue under the applicable statutes also seems clearly to have existed in the proposed transferee court on that date. … Neither 28 U.S.C. § 1404 (a) nor any other statute establishes specific time limits within which such a motion must be made. There was clearly no undue delay in this case. See 1 Barron & Holtzoff (Wright ed.)

Rozdilsky

District Court, D. Maryland · Feb 20, 2026

Rozdilsky argues that the Court should find that the immunity provision applies because the record evidence definitively establishes that his only disclosure of any trade secrets was to his attorney, and his sole purpose … Dec. 14, 2021) (finding that DISA immunity is “an affirmative defense, and entitlement to the immunity must be established by the defendant”).

Borkowski v. Dever

District Court, D. Maryland · Dec 7, 2021

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity is an affirmative defense to Section 1983 claims that “protects government officials from liability for civil … They are not entitled to qualified immunity. D.

Du Daobin v. Cisco Systems, Inc.

2 F. Supp. 3d 717 · District Court, D. Maryland · Feb 24, 2014

Corporate Immunity Under the ATS Cisco next argues that the ATS “does not provide subject matter jurisdiction over corporations,” citing Kiobel v. … What is clear is that the Supreme Court’s holding in Kiobel does not plainly address whether corporations are immune under the ATS.

Murphy v. Bastiampillai

District Court, D. Maryland · Sep 25, 2025

Qualified immunity bars a Bivens action against a federal officer unless “(1) the allegations, if true, substantiate a violation of a federal statutory or constitutional right and (2) the right was ‘clearly established’ … Bastiampillai violated that was “clearly established” at the time she violated it. Hicks, 965 F.3d at 307. Plaintiff does not site any court decision confirming that actions akin to those taken by Ms.

Meredith v. Prince George's County

District Court, D. Maryland · Jan 10, 2022

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity is an affirmative defense to Section 1983 claims that “protects government officials from liability for civil … Officer Thomas “bear[s] the burden of showing that the violation was not clearly established[.]” Mays v.

Hagen v. United States

485 F. Supp. 2d 622 · District Court, D. Maryland · Apr 30, 2007

In short, those portions of Irving’s testimony that relate to the corporate structure or everyday governance of the company are clearly admissible. … The “responsible person” is not limited to one person in a corporation; rather, there may be multiple people who qualify as “responsible persons.” Plett, 185 F.3d at 219.

Kleger

District Court, D. Maryland · Jan 8, 2026

Defendant Robinson is Not Entitled to Qualified Immunity or Public Official Immunity. … Defendant Robinson correctly states that qualified immunity protects government officials from civil liability “unless the official’s conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right.” Pearson v.

Allen v. United States Government

District Court, D. Maryland · Sep 30, 2025

A facial challenge asserts “that the allegations pleaded in the complaint are insufficient to establish subject matter jurisdiction.” Id. … Here, Plaintiff’s amendment to add various federal and state agencies that have sovereign immunity, and against whom Plaintiff has failed to state a plausible claim, is “clearly insufficient.”

Doe v. Miles Laboratories, Cutter Laboratories Div.

675 F. Supp. 1466 · District Court, D. Maryland · Dec 14, 1987

In the words of Lord Abinger: I am clearly of opinion that the defendant is entitled to our judgment.... … A plaintiff who cannot show that a product was both defective and unreasonably dan *1475 gerous has failed to establish the basis for the defendant’s liability.

Shreve v. Sears, Roebuck & Co.

166 F. Supp. 2d 378 · District Court, D. Maryland · Sep 25, 2001

Plaintiffs claim that this is a “bold'' but clearly improper end. … Azure, 801 F.2d 336, 340-41 (8th Cir.1986), is clearly inapposite.

Marcas, L.L.C. v. Board of County Commissioners

977 F. Supp. 2d 487 · District Court, D. Maryland · Jul 25, 2013

The record clearly establishes the MDE inspecting St. Andrew’s Landfill as early as 1999 regarding leachate seeps flowing from the landfill to adjacent waters. See ECF No. 107 at 4. … "Preliminary, we note that, even if the doctrine of governmental immunity were to protect Riverdale from the Board’s claims based on negligence and strict liability, the doctrine of governmental immunity would have no application

McLamb v. The City of Mt. Rainier

District Court, D. Maryland · Sep 6, 2024

Qualified Immunity City Defendants generally contend that even if the conduct of Ms. Ferrufino or Mr. … immunity.