Case law

Parker v. State

337 Md. 271 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Feb 7, 1995

In particular, the Court has distinguished between the qualified and narrower immunity for discretionary acts generally accorded to public officials, and absolute judicial immunity, which, unlike qualified immunity, applies … Mele, 267 Md. 437, 444 , 298 A.2d 156, 161 (1972) (contrasting the absolute immunity of judges with the qualified immunity of law enforcement officers); Eliason v.

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.”)

Williams v. Mayor & City Council

128 Md. App. 1 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Sep 7, 1999

The Maryland case law establishes unequivocally that police officers in the course of their public duties are public officials within the contemplation of the qualified immunity law. … We hold that in enacting the immunity provision of Ch. 307 of the Acts of 1979, it clearly was not the legislative intent to diminish or to curtail in any way the qualified immunity otherwise enjoyed by a law enforcement

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.”)

Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission v. Bowen

410 Md. 287 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Aug 26, 2009

Although Dawkins did not expressly delineate legislative immunity, such immunity claims clearly fall within the language in Dawkins of “any other type of immunity.” … When a qualified immunity claim is not defeated by malice or some other factor which might defeat qualified immunity, the two types of immunity claims are the same and are reviewable on appeal from an adverse final judgment

Town of Port Deposit v. Petetit

113 Md. App. 401 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jan 30, 1997

Whether a defendant possesses a qualified immunity is ultimately an issue of law for the court to determine. … of an absolute immunity defense or a Harlow type of qualified immunity defense; the issues would be legal ones.

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

Condon v. State

332 Md. 481 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Nov 1, 1993

established *493 by the State Treasurer. … We held that § 17-107(b) established a more limited waiver of the State’s immunity, without the precondi *496 tion of timely notice before suit was filed. Id. 327 Md. at 41 , 607 A.2d 552 .

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

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.

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.

Cunningham ex rel Gaines v. Baltimore Cnty.

487 Md. 282 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jun 25, 2024

Because the law was not clearly established at the time, qualified immunity is proper. … Alternatively, the Defendants argued that Corporal Ruby was entitled to qualified immunity because he did not violate clearly established law.

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).

Artis v. Cyphers

100 Md. App. 633 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jun 8, 1994

The Mitchell Court continued, at 526, 105 S.Ct. at 2815 : “Unless the plaintiffs allegations state a claim of violation of clearly established law, a defendant pleading qualified im *650 munity is entitled to dismissal before … judgment for the defendant on the ground that even under the defendant’s version of the facts the defendant’s conduct violated clearly established law, whether the law clearly proscribed the actions the defendant claims

Dehn Motor Sales, LLC v. Schultz

439 Md. 460 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jul 22, 2014

But there’s enough that’s involved that it certainly raised it to qualified immunity, I mean to show that it was not clearly established. … established law, and therefore, were entitled to qualified immunity.

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.