Case law

Smith v. Montgomery County, Md.

573 F. Supp. 604 · District Court, D. Maryland · Oct 26, 1983

Under the defense of qualified immunity, McGuckian is “shielded from liability insofar as [his] conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known … The Supreme Court has stated that, in determining whether a defendant is entitled to qualified immunity, a court must “determine, not only the currently applicable law, but whether that law was clearly established at the

Swagler v. Sheridan

837 F. Supp. 2d 509 · District Court, D. Maryland · Jul 12, 2011

Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, “government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … established’ for qualified immunity purposes.”)

Villalta Canales v. Caw

District Court, D. Maryland · Apr 3, 2020

The burden of establishing the qualified immunity defense rests on the party seeking to invoke it. Id. … Haines, 45 F.3d 790, 798 (4th Cir. 1995) (“[A] court reviewing a qualified immunity defense should assess … whether the alleged conduct violated law clearly established at the time the conduct occurred.”)

Beyond Systems, Inc. v. Keynetics, Inc.

422 F. Supp. 2d 523 · District Court, D. Maryland · Feb 14, 2006

Pelletier, 516 U.S. 299 , 116 S.Ct. 834 , 133 L.Ed.2d 773 (1996) (qualified immunity defense may be raised at both the motion to dismiss and summary judgment stages). … Case law clearly establishes that CDA immunity applies even where an ISP knew of its customers’ potentially illegal activity. The Fourth Circuit in Zeran explained why.

Albero v. Worcester County Board of Commissioners

District Court, D. Maryland · Feb 11, 2025

Elliott, 25 F.4th 227, 235 (4th Cir. 2022) (explaining that qualified immunity applies when either (1) a plaintiff fails to state a violation of a federal right or (2) a defendant shows the right was not clearly established … Having determined that Plaintiffs fail to state a violation of Arthur’s federal rights, there is no need for the Court to address, for qualified-immunity purposes, whether any such right was “clearly established” at the

In Re KBR, Inc.

736 F. Supp. 2d 954 · District Court, D. Maryland · Sep 8, 2010

Clearly, the Supreme Court viewed the concept of derivative sovereign immunity, at least as it derives from the immunity of federal officials, as separate and distinct from the preemption-based government contractor defense … Likewise, the Fourth Circuit has clearly embraced the terminology of derivative sovereign immunity, as explained herein. See infra Parts I.B.2-3.

Schultz v. Braga

290 F. Supp. 2d 637 · District Court, D. Maryland · Nov 13, 2003

Thus, “unless the plaintiffs allegations state a claim of violation of clearly established law, a defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled to dismissal before the commencement of discovery.” … In ruling on a defense of qualified immunity, a court must (1) identify “the specific right allegedly violated”; (2) determine “whether at the time of the alleged violation the right was clearly established”; and (3) if so

Jennings v. Alexander

District Court, D. Maryland · Jul 17, 2025

Qualified Immunity Defendants assert that if Plaintiff has stated a viable claim, they are entitled to qualified immunity because it was not clearly established at the time … established for any future qualified immunity cases involving similar circumstances.”

McNair v. Bace

District Court, D. Maryland · Jun 5, 2025

McNair has stated a viable claim, he is entitled to qualified immunity because it was not clearly established at the time of the incident that his actions constituted an excessive use of force. ECF No. 38-1 at 14. … established for any future qualified immunity cases involving similar circumstances.”

Vaseleros-Stevenson v. Calvert County, Maryland

District Court, D. Maryland · Feb 17, 2021

Plaintiff frequently viisconstrues the “clearly established” prong of the analysis. … He is clearly entitled to qualified immunity. Plaintiffs § 1983 claim asserted against him is therefore DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. B.

Rouse v. Florio

District Court, D. Maryland · Sep 30, 2019

The doctrine of qualified immunity shields government officials “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … established at the time for qualified immunity purposes).

Smith v. Harris

District Court, D. Maryland · Sep 30, 2019

The doctrine of qualified immunity shields government officials “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … he sat restrained in handcuffs— was not clearly established at the time of the incident.

Poole v. Bishop

District Court, D. Maryland · Sep 30, 2019

Qualified Immunity Defendants also argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity from all of Poole’s claims.20 The doctrine of qualified immunity shields government officials … [qualified immunity] is effectively lost if a case is erroneously permitted to go to trial.” 20 Defendants do not argue why they are entitled to qualified immunity on a claim- by-claim basis.

Benford v. American Broadcasting Companies, Inc.

554 F. Supp. 145 · District Court, D. Maryland · Dec 22, 1982

Therefore, officials who act beyond their scope of authority lack standing to assert a qualified immunity defense even in those instances where their behavior does not violate clearly established constitutional or statutory … . *150 If the law the congressional defendants are charged with violating was clearly established, their qualified immunity argument must be rejected without further consideration.

Carrero v. Farrelly

310 F. Supp. 3d 581 · District Court, D. Maryland · Apr 19, 2018

In other words, he is entitled to qualified immunity if the constitutional right at issue was not clearly established. … In determining whether a constitutional right is clearly established or not for purposes of qualified immunity courts must consider whether "any reasonable official in the defendant's shoes would have understood that he was

Henry v. Purnell

428 F. Supp. 2d 393 · District Court, D. Maryland · Apr 21, 2006

Second, if the answer to the first question is yes, they are to further inquire “whether the right was clearly established.” Id. … Purnell does not contend that he is entitled to qualified immunity on the ground that it is not clearly established that shooting someone with a handgun in the belief that a Taser is being fired constitutes a Fourth Amendment

Meyers v. Baltimore County

981 F. Supp. 2d 422 · District Court, D. Maryland · Nov 1, 2013

Further, defendants maintained that, “ ‘[i]f the court finds that Officer Mee violated the Fourth Amendment then he is still entitled to qualified immunity because such an interpretation of the law was not clearly established … “Qualified immunity extends to protect officials ‘who commit constitutional violations but who, in light of clearly established law, could reasonably believe that their actions were lawful.’ ” Williams v.

Oliver v. Dep't of Pub. Safety & Corr. Servs.

350 F. Supp. 3d 340 · District Court, D. Maryland · Nov 28, 2018

Qualified immunity shields *352 government officials from liability for civil damages as long as "their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have … Because the plaintiff's right not to *353 be listed in the MSOR was not clearly established at the time the alleged violation occurred, qualified immunity insulates the individual defendants in this case from liability under

Housley v. Holquist

879 F. Supp. 2d 472 · District Court, D. Maryland · Aug 30, 2011

The Housleys bear the burden of proving the violation of a constitutional right, but the Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity if they prove that the right was not clearly established. See Wilson v. … Finally, the Court will not revisit the qualified immunity issue at trial.

Harris v. Eichbaum

642 F. Supp. 1056 · District Court, D. Maryland · Sep 2, 1986

If the law was clearly established, the immunity defense ordinarily should fail, since a reasonably competent public official should know the law governing his conduct____ By defining the limits of qualified immunity essentially … Forsyth that: “Unless the plaintiff’s allegations state a claim of violation of clearly established law, a defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled to dismissal before the commencement of discovery.