Case law

Lindsey v. Njoku

District Court, D. Maryland · Jun 7, 2023

Qualified Immunity Njoku and Harris raise the defense of qualified immunity. (Mot. at 5−7). … They generally provide the legal standard for the Court to determine if they are entitled to qualified immunity, but fail to apply the law to the facts of the case.

Hayat v. Diaz

District Court, D. Maryland · Feb 12, 2025

Qualified Immunity Lastly, the Supreme Court has explained that the “doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials ‘from liability for civil damages insofar … And so, it is well-established that “[t]he doctrine of qualified immunity protects police officers and public officials from claims of constitutional violations ‘for reasonable mistakes as to the legality of their actions

Pearson v. Simms

345 F. Supp. 2d 515 · District Court, D. Maryland · Dec 11, 2003

Additionally, the Court found that “[b]ecause Bounds did not create an abstract, freestanding right to a law library or legal assistance, an inmate cannot establish relevant actual injury simply by establishing that his prison … In light of this conclusion, it is not necessary to address defendants’ Qualified Immunity Defense.

University of Maryland v. Cleland

516 F. Supp. 448 · District Court, D. Maryland · Jun 2, 1981

The University is clearly entitled to payment for overseas courses provided to servicement. Similarly, the VA is obligated to issue benefit checks for course work undertaken by eligible servicemen. … The Supreme Court has established by the above-quoted language a two-pronged test to be applied in determining whether an action is moot.

Borkowski v. Dever

District Court, D. Maryland · Sep 30, 2019

Qualified Immunity The County Defendants and the State’s Attorney Defendants argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity. … Qualified immunity is an affirmative defense to § 1983 claims that “protects government officials ‘from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly

United States v. ARTICLE OF DRUG, ETC.

331 F. Supp. 912 · District Court, D. Maryland · Jan 14, 1971

. § 352 (e) (1) (A) (ii), in that the article is fabricated from two or more ingredients and the label fails to bear the established name of each active ingredient. … We cannot agree, however, with the conclusion that such immunity or skepticism somehow transfers to the promise to “lift out puffs” or give a “face lift without surgery.”

Daniel

District Court, D. Maryland · Jan 15, 2026

immunity. … immunity arguments.

Corsa v. Tawes

149 F. Supp. 771 · District Court, D. Maryland · Mar 27, 1957

. *773 The established practice of the industry is to catch the fish by means of a purse net, for they cannot be caught economically in commercial quantities in any other way. … Commonwealth of Massachusetts, supra, 139 U.S. at page 265 , 11 S.Ct. at page 565 , that menhaden are food for other fish has been clearly proved to be erroneous.

McFadden v. Grasmick

485 F. Supp. 2d 642 · District Court, D. Maryland · May 12, 2007

McFadden argues that the 40% Rule is at best arbitrary and is not an established standard in the field of high school athletics. … As McFadden contends, even with well-established sports programs, there will be teams that do not have participants in particular events.

Meyerhoff v. Garten

232 F. Supp. 363 · District Court, D. Maryland · Aug 4, 1964

Some tests are well established. … The determination of the amount of the fee is clearly a matter of state law. An order will be entered remanding the case to the Circuit Court for Baltimore City. .

United States v. Mandel

415 F. Supp. 997 · District Court, D. Maryland · Mar 31, 1976

The fact that there was proof of intent to deceive did not establish proof of intent to employ deceit for wrongful purposes. Similarly, in Epstein v. … Defendant Mandel has proposed that the doctrine of legislative immunity should bar the prosecution of this case.

McPherson v. Maryland Public Employees Council 67

943 F. Supp. 579 · District Court, D. Maryland · Nov 1, 1996

Severance Pay In contrast to the three claims discussed above, severance pay is a benefit clearly covered by ERISA. See Holland v. … See 29 U.S.C. § 1002 (1) (“any plan, fund, or program ... established or maintained by an employer ... to the extent that such plan, fund, or program was established or is maintained for the purpose of providing for its participants

Cavanagh v. Grasmick

75 F. Supp. 2d 446 · District Court, D. Maryland · Nov 24, 1999

In any event, while Congress has abrogated state sovereign immunity with respect to federal claims prosecuted under the IDEA, see 20 U.S.C. § 1403 (a) (“A State shall not be immune under the eleventh amendment to the Constitution … Clearly, these results are consistent with Ms. McMullen’s testimony that Matthew made progress toward meeting his reading objectives, see Tr.

Uhrig v. United States

592 F. Supp. 349 · District Court, D. Maryland · Jun 30, 1984

[Pet., H 29] Taxpayer’s contention (HH 1 and 4) that the IRS lacks jurisdiction to issue a summons and that Taxpayer is immune (e.g., not a person liable to pay taxes) is without merit. … Under TEFRA’s new “bright line” test, a summons issued for a criminal purpose is enforceable unless there is a “Justice Department referral”. 6 In the instant case, Special Agent Morris’ Declaration clearly establishes that

LeRoux v. Montgomery County, Maryland

District Court, D. Maryland · Mar 20, 2023

Governmental Immunity Protects the County. … Other than mentioning that law enforcement officers receive qualified immunity in some circumstances, it has little bearing on this case. Finally, in Davis v.

Hurt v. Individually and as a whole, every public media establishment of the USA

District Court, D. Maryland · Mar 3, 2021

The Complaint further excoriates racism in American culture while averring that “public media has mathematically deduced that whites are stealing or mishandling in some obscure and never clearly articulated way, the well … require that this Court, upon review, dismiss any allegation that (i) is frivolous or malicious; (ii) fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; or (iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune

Metropolitan Regional Information Systems, Inc. v. American Home Realty Network, Inc.

948 F. Supp. 2d 538 · District Court, D. Maryland · Jun 10, 2013

As a preliminary matter, MRIS and NAR contend that they are immune from antitrust liability based on Noerr-Pennington immunity. 1. … Noerr-Pennington antitrust immunity “Those who petition government for redress are generally immune from antitrust liability.” Prof'l Real Estate Investors, Inc. v.

Minter v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.

675 F. Supp. 2d 591 · District Court, D. Maryland · Dec 16, 2009

However, defendants openly admit that Wells Fargo handled regulatory matters for Prosperity and have provided in discovery a copy of an agreement that establishes this fact. … Kerby articulated its disagreement with Hardin , declining to follow Zaremski, on the basis of Hardin's citation to inapposite case law addressing sovereign immunity, which actually tends to support rather than undermine

Stanislaus v. White

192 F. Supp. 2d 426 · District Court, D. Maryland · Mar 29, 2002

Jones established a schedule for Plaintiff to complete the rotations again. … Plaintiff may file its request again when the facts of this case are more clearly developed.

Quigley v. United States

927 F. Supp. 2d 213 · District Court, D. Maryland · Sep 10, 2012

The potential liability of the United States under the FTCA is “qualified by a number of exceptions.” Holbrook v. United States, 673 F.3d 341, 345 (4th Cir.2012). … At best, this statute only establishes that the decision of whether to have a maintenance management system is non-discretionary.