Case law

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.

Hoffman v. Baltimore Police Dept.

379 F. Supp. 2d 778 · District Court, D. Maryland · Jun 29, 2005

Aside from any considerations related to the strength or preservation of the attorney-client privilege, Defendants’ motion to seal is clearly overbroad. … At the time of the alleged conduct at issue in this count, the scope of the First Amendment protection is sufficiently uncertain in this context so as to entitle Defendants to qualified immunity.

Nichols v. Harford County Board of Education

189 F. Supp. 2d 325 · District Court, D. Maryland · Mar 18, 2002

(Defendant’s motion to dismiss the Rehabilitation Act claim on the ground of sovereign immunity need not be considered as summary judgment is appropriate on that claim in any event. 1 ). I. … Defendant assumes that Nichols satisfies the first two elements of the prima facie case; she is a member of a protected class and is qualified for her job.

Townsend v. Connell

District Court, D. Maryland · May 11, 2021

Defendants also assert the defense of qualified immunity, but where they provide no argument for application of the doctrine other than boilerplate statements on the legal standard, the Court will not apply the doctrine … Qualified Immunity Although Defendants assert the defense of qualified immunity, they merely recite general case law on the relevant standards and provide no analysis specific to this case.

Behnke v. Geib

169 F. Supp. 647 · District Court, D. Maryland · Jan 2, 1959

While an executor is named in the will, an administrator may be just as clearly and definitely named by statute. … His present amenability to suit is clearly set out by statute, subject to the qualifications of section 112 of Article 93.

In re Shapiro

34 F. Supp. 737 · District Court, D. Maryland · Aug 14, 1940

The mortgage on its face is clearly one for future advances, and equally clearly does not comply with the statute and the Maryland decisions applying it. The leading Maryland case is High Grade Brick Co. v. … In the instant case the mortgage on its face is clearly one for *739 future advances, and there is no controversy as to the facts.

Griffin v. Shonia

District Court, D. Maryland · Sep 10, 2025

Griffin fails to state a claim for relief, and because the State Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. ECF No. 31-1. … State Defendants also contend they are entitled to qualified immunity. Their brief statement of case law and conclusory argument is insufficient to establish such immunity at this juncture.

McGRATH-MALOTT v. Maryland

565 F. Supp. 2d 656 · District Court, D. Maryland · Jun 23, 2008

Finally, this Court granted both Maryland’s and Mades’s motions as to the state law claims in Counts IV and V on the grounds that they were immune under the Eleventh Amendment of the United States Constitution, but denied … As to the second element, termination is clearly an adverse employment action.

Brink v. DaLesio

496 F. Supp. 1350 · District Court, D. Maryland · Aug 19, 1980

membership participation nor were immune from the amendment process. … The latter practice is clearly preferable.

Ademiluyi v. Pennymac Mortgage Investment Trust Holdings I, LLC

929 F. Supp. 2d 502 · District Court, D. Maryland · Mar 11, 2013

A debt collector is not immunized from liability for collection activities merely because such actions are undertaken indirectly through an agent. … Having concluded that the allegations are sufficient to establish that PennyMac Holdings qualifies as a debt purchaser, I need not address defendants’ argument that the mortgage lender license held by PennyMac Services satisfied

Olson v. Largo-Springhill Ltd. Partnership

919 F. Supp. 847 · District Court, D. Maryland · Feb 7, 1995

Similarly, under the McDonnell-Burdine test, Plaintiff has failed to establish that she was an “otherwise qualified” lessee. … Instead, “civil litigation at the district court level clearly takes on the *852 character of a trial de novo, completely separate from [administrative actions].” Id. at 157 .

Borkowski v. Dever

District Court, D. Maryland · Sep 30, 2020

of the alleged misconduct for qualified immunity to apply. … The County Defendants argue that Detectives Burrows and Tomas are protected by qualified immunity on Count II as they are “unaware” of any caselaw that would clearly establish that any of the

Communications Equipment Workers, Inc. v. Western Electric Co.

320 F. Supp. 1277 · District Court, D. Maryland · Nov 16, 1970

A court should, however, interfere where the arbitrator (a) clearly went beyond the scope of the submission, Textile Workers Union of Am. v. … The Company clearly placed it there because it mistakenly thought that the job ‘required conversion of measured units to specification units by long division of decimals.’ b.

Champion Spark Plug Co. v. T. G. Stores, Inc.

239 F. Supp. 941 · District Court, D. Maryland · Mar 24, 1965

On the record before this court Champion is clearly engaged in promoting intrastates sales, that is sales from Maryland wholesalers (Champion’s twelve distributors) to Maryland retailers (the automotive parts establishments … Under such circumstances, the exemption or classifications established by plaintiff clearly cannot be said to be reasonable and therefore they bar the plaintiff from enforcing its fair trade contract against defendant.

Ohio Casualty Insurance Company v. Ross

222 F. Supp. 292 · District Court, D. Maryland · Sep 27, 1963

Thus the Maryland Legislature has clearly recognized the right of one suffering damages to proceed against the fund in a disclaimer situation. … He did not appear at the hearing held in this case to establish the facts although he was notified in advance of such hearing.

Tarer

District Court, D. Maryland · Aug 18, 2026

immunity. … - 15 2017), however, the Fourth Circuit specifically held that it is clearly established that “retaliating against an inmate who filed a prison grievance [is] unlawful

Sebroski v. United States

111 F. Supp. 2d 681 · District Court, D. Maryland · Nov 5, 1999

It is well established that a properly qualified chiropractor is competent to testify as an expert witness. See, e.g., Vitale v. … However, chiropractic treatment is now fully established as a legitimate treatment for disease and injuries.

Boas v. Graves

District Court, D. Maryland · Mar 19, 2024

Boas’s federal statutory or constitutional rights, he is also entitled to qualified immunity. See Spivey v. Norris, 731 Fed. … or constitutional right, and (2) the unlawfulness of their conduct was clearly established at the time.”

Barnhart v. Western Maryland Ry. Co.

41 F. Supp. 898 · District Court, D. Maryland · Nov 19, 1941

Some tests are well established. … To bring a case within the statute, a right or immunity created by the Constitution or laws of the United States must be an element, and an essential one, of the plaintiff’s cause of action. Starin v.

Class v. Towson University

118 F. Supp. 3d 833 · District Court, D. Maryland · Jul 17, 2015

To prove a violation of either the ADA or Section 504, a plaintiff must establish that: (1) he has a disability; (2) he is “otherwise qualified to receive the benefits of a public service, program, or activity”; and (3) he … Alternatively, Class clearly qualifies as an individual with a record of a protected disability under 42 U.S.C. § 12102 (1)(B).