Case law

Franklin v. Clark

454 F. Supp. 2d 356 · District Court, D. Maryland · Oct 2, 2006

Government officials performing discretionary functions are entitled to immunity from liability for civil damages to the extent that “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of … This assertion forms the basis of Clark’s qualified immunity defense.

Racetrac Petroleum, Inc. v. Prince George's County

601 F. Supp. 892 · District Court, D. Maryland · Jan 31, 1985

Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 , 102 S.Ct. 2727, 2739 , 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982), the Court held that qualified immunity shields from liability for civil damages discretionary conduct that “does not violate clearly established … Plaintiff argues that this qualified immunity standard is not met by the County Defendants because their actions in denying plaintiff’s special exception application violated the “clearly established law,” set forth in Community

Smith v. Danielczyk

400 Md. 98 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jul 25, 2007

In addition to the common law qualified immunity, Baltimore City police officers enjoy an indirect statutory qualified immunity under LGTCA. … immunity, but only qualified public official immunity. 10 .

Artiga Carrero v. Farrelly

270 F. Supp. 3d 851 · District Court, D. Maryland · Sep 20, 2017

United States) provide the relevant clearly established law for determining Officer Farrelly’s entitlement to immunity. … 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.”

Randolph v. Maryland

74 F. Supp. 2d 537 · District Court, D. Maryland · Nov 18, 1999

Qualified Immunity and Eighth Amendment Liability In response to Randolph’s claims, the Defendants assert qualified immunity. … Because this constitutional right was clearly established at the time of Randolph’s injury, the Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity.

Williams v. Wicomico County Board of Education

836 F. Supp. 2d 387 · District Court, D. Maryland · Jul 21, 2011

The doctrine of qualified immunity operates when the officials’ “conduct does not violate clearly established constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would know.” Harlow v. … As such, Defendants cannot establish qualified immunity on the face of the Complaint. Last, Defendants challenge the sufficiency of Mr.

McDaniel v. Arnold

898 F. Supp. 2d 809 · District Court, D. Maryland · Aug 21, 2012

Moreover, it is safe to say that, for purposes of qualified immunity, all of the foregoing principles have been clearly established at least since Whren was decided in 1996. … But, even if they did, qualified immunity would apply because a reasonable officer would not have understood that to be so in light of what was then the clearly established law.

Maryland Attorney General Opinion 102OAG016

Maryland Attorney General Reports · Dec 4, 2017

Att’y In our view, the qualified offer provisions are not severable from the immunity provisions. … Section 6-828—which Dackman invalidated— establishes the elevated blood lead levels at which the owner must be provided notice and the “opportunity to make a qualified offer under § 6-831.”

Levinson-Roth v. Parries

872 F. Supp. 1439 · District Court, D. Maryland · Jan 5, 1995

The Court holds that the law “clearly established” this right in the factual context in which Deputy Popkin allegedly acted, thus depriving Deputy Popkin of the protection of qualified immunity. … Moreover, the law clearly established Levinson-Roth’s right to be free from strip searches absent any indication that she possessed weapons or contraband, thus depriving the county defendants of a qualified immunity defense

Pierpont v. Allen

415 F. Supp. 1386 · District Court, D. Maryland · Jul 19, 1976

This case can no longer be an adequate statement of law, since it accords to the prosecutor only a qualified immunity, and is clearly overruled by Inbler v. Pachtman, supra. In Hilliard v. … , he enjoys only qualified immunity.

Christian v. Cecil County, Md.

817 F. Supp. 1279 · District Court, D. Maryland · Mar 29, 1993

The defendants respond that they are protected by qualified official immunity. … In contrast to Maryland law, actual malice need not be established in order to defeat a qualified immunity defense under § 1983. Procunier v.

Popovic v. United States

997 F. Supp. 672 · District Court, D. Maryland · Feb 27, 1998

Qualified immunity, however, protects “government officials performing discretionary functions ... from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … The qualified immunity inquiry is at an end. Hadley enjoys that immunity and Popovic’s constitutional claim fails. VII.

Prince George's County v. Brent

185 Md. App. 42 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Mar 27, 2009

to qualified immunity for any amount above the existing motor vehicle insurance limit, pursuant to either § 5—507(b)(2) or § 5—511(c). … Additional Claims of Immunity As noted above, the County was granted qualified immunity pursuant to the provisions of § 5-524, thereby reducing the amount directly recoverable from the County to $20,000.

Piechowicz v. United States

685 F. Supp. 486 · District Court, D. Maryland · Mar 29, 1988

In Harlow , Justice Powell wrote that a claim of qualified immunity rests upon the existence, if any, of the “objective reasonableness of an official’s conduct, as measured by reference to clearly established law.” … Case law is not, however, the sole source of clearly established law. Alleged violations of clearly established statutory rights may also bar a defense of qualified immunity. See Davis v.

Williams v. Mayor of Baltimore

359 Md. 101 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jun 8, 2000

We hold that in enacting the immunity provision of [1979 Maryland Laws, Chapter] 307, it clearly was not the legislative intent to diminish or to curtail in any way the qualified immunity otherwise enjoyed by a law enforcement … Maryland case law has affirmatively established that, while performing their duties, law enforcement officers are public officials and, thus, fall within the scope of qualified immunity as to their discretionary acts.

Davis v. State

294 Md. 370 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Oct 5, 1982

),” nor qualified for the exemption from the immunization requirement. … Maryland’s compulsory immunization program clearly furthers the important governmental objective of eliminating and preventing certain communicable diseases.

Davis v. DiPino

121 Md. App. 28 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Apr 16, 1998

In § 1983 actions where qualified immunity is at issue, it has been the rule that the plaintiff bears the burden of showing that the fact-specific constitutional right allegedly violated was clearly established at the time … to qualified immunity on summary judgment.

Md. Bd. of Physicians v. Geier

241 Md. App. 429 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jun 26, 2019

Under that form 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 … Are defendants entitled to qualified immunity under § 1983, where non-Board and non-voting members did not disclose information, and it is not clearly established that publication violated plaintiffs’ constitutional

Branch v. McGeeney

123 Md. App. 330 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Oct 2, 1998

This issue is relevant to the officers’ claims of qualified immunity from suit for violations of the federal constitution, as no such immunity exists for violations of such “clearly established” rights. Harlow v. … As we noted, *359 qualified immunity is available unless the official violates a clearly established federal constitutional right. That exception applies here.

Wolfe v. Routzahn

953 F. Supp. 2d 627 · District Court, D. Maryland · Jun 20, 2013

“Qualified immunity protects officers who commit constitutional violations but who, in light of clearly established law, could reasonably believe that their actions were lawful.” Henry v. … The qualified immunity analysis is a two-prong inquiry: first, the court asks whether a constitutional violation has occurred; and second, the court asks whether the right violated was clearly established. Id.