Case law

Hockley v. Eastern Transp. Co.

10 F. Supp. 908 · District Court, D. Maryland · Mar 25, 1935

On the other hand, the libellant’s most qualified expert, a Mr. … But the case is, I think, clearly distinguishable. There the court was dealing with the fire statute which affords complete immunity to any liability “unless such fire is caused by the design or neglect of such owner.”

Dobbs v. Townsend

District Court, D. Maryland · Sep 19, 2019

If the right was not clearly established, the qualified immunity doctrine shields a defendant officer from liability. … , and if so, whether the right was clearly established at that time.

Gibson v. State

138 Md. App. 399 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · May 1, 2001

The finding of Judge Chapin was not clearly erroneous and are, therefore, binding on us. … Judge Chapin found as a fact the prior convictions for qualifying offenses and two separate periods of incarceration — all in the State of New York.

Ogunsula v. Warrenfeltz

District Court, D. Maryland · Dec 23, 2021

Qualified immunity turns on the “objective reasonableness of an official’s conduct, as measured by reference to clearly established law.” Harlow, 457 U.S. at 818. … However, “[a] right need not be recognized by a court in a specific factual context before such right may be considered ‘clearly established’ for purposes of qualified immunity.”

Maryland Commission on Human Relations v. Mayor of Baltimore

86 Md. App. 167 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Feb 27, 1991

This case establishes, however, that the initial burden rests with the alleged victim to establish that he is qualified to do the job at issue. … The holding of the hearing examiner, adopted by the Appeal Board, however, clearly sets forth that Mrs.

State v. Baltimore & Ohio Railroad

48 Md. 49 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Feb 21, 1878

from taxation — this has been expressly granted; and to withhold such immunity from the company or its property. … Whenever it undertakes to grant the exemption from taxation, it must be clearly expressed. It must not be inferred except from necessary implication. McCulloh vs. State, 4 Wheaton, 428 .

Polido v. Crowley

District Court, D. Maryland · Jan 24, 2024

Government officials sued in their individual capacities are entitled to qualified immunity where “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would … The qualified immunity inquiry is two-fold.

Corporal v. Weber

District Court, D. Maryland · Jan 28, 2022

The Correctional Defendants have asserted that they are all entitled to qualified immunity because their conduct did not violate clearly established law. … Yet absent a finding that those rights were clearly established, the Correctional Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity against Corporal’s claims.

Ohio Casualty Insurance v. Lee

62 Md. App. 176 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Mar 8, 1985

relating to the claim with respect to which coverage is sought and the second, to the status of the person against whom a claim is *183 brought, i.e., whether that person is an insured under the contract: It contends that Lee qualifies … We also adopt the response of the Court of Appeals to a similar contention: “While Trans America may believe that the evidence of the guilty plea would establish injuries sustained by Mrs. Schaffer or Mrs.

Garcia v. Angulo

335 Md. 475 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jul 15, 1994

The term “qualified person” in Art. 48A, § 243L(e) is derived from Md.Code (1957), Art. … Cases decided under the predecessor statute have established that “resident of this State” in the definition of “qualified person” means a domiciliary of Maryland. See Hawks v.

United States v. State of Md.

471 F. Supp. 1030 · District Court, D. Maryland · Jun 12, 1979

Several years later the Supreme Court observed that "the line between the taxable and the immune has been drawn by an unsteady hand." United States v. … Thus, the 1974 Act also served to confirm the construction intended by the Legislature but not clearly expressed in the 1971 Act.

Clark v. Prince George's County

211 Md. App. 548 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · May 2, 2013

There was no issue of immunity in that case. … The evidence was undisputed that Washington had taken the entire day off work to be home for the furniture delivery. *578 He was clearly off-duty and, as his own testimony established, he was not required to carry his service

Attkisson v. Bridges

District Court, D. Maryland · Mar 16, 2021

Without a clearly established right to recover against a mere “procurer” of illegal interceptions, the Plaintiffs cannot establish both prongs of the test as required to overcome Rosenstein’s claim of qualified immunity … Nevertheless, even if the Plaintiffs could be said to have established the “clearly established right” prong of the qualified immunity test, they have undoubtedly failed to establish the prong which requires them to show

State v. Copes

175 Md. App. 351 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jul 5, 2007

SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY/MTCA The State of Maryland, as sovereign, has absolute immunity from suit under common law. … Rather, she argued that “the injury to Gladys [ ] occurred on July 12, 2003, the day she died”; and that, because “[c]ase law in Maryland clearly established] that the date of injury, not the date of negligence, is the date

Athas v. Hill

300 Md. 133 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jun 22, 1984

Clearly something extra is needed over and beyond the duty owed the employer. In Hoeverman [v. … Our review of the cases establishes that, although reasons have differed, the majority rule is against recovery in cases such as that at bar.

Brown v. State

234 Md. App. 145 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Sep 27, 2017

CODIS hits from establishing probable cause. … The original House and Senate bills established the initial set of crimes that would qualify a suspect or convict for DNA collection, the people permitted to collect DNA evidence, the technical standards that each of the

Montgomery County Council v. Garrott

243 Md. 634 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Aug 23, 1966

meaning were not made apparent by the following requirement of the Constitution that the election be by the qualified voters of the county is clearly defined by its historical background and its commonly agreed-upon interpretation … The districts were established by the Charter in 1948.

State Department of Assessment & Taxation v. North Baltimore Center, Inc.

361 Md. 612 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Nov 17, 2000

that it was a charitable organization 2 and evidence offered by the Supervisor to establish the opposite. 3 *615 Noting the prerequisites that must be met to qualify for an exemption from real property taxation — the property … That too is a hard-and-fast rule, which, had this Court intended it, could, and would, have been more clearly stated. JUDGMENT AFFIRMED, WITH COSTS. 1 .

State v. Baker

453 Md. 32 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · May 22, 2017

Id. at 508 n.24, 98 S.Ct. 824 (citing Downum, 372 U.S. 734 , 83 S.Ct. 1033 ); see also In re Mark R., 294 Md. at 262 , 449 A.2d 393 (“[T]he cases clearly establish that a deficiency in the prosecution’s evidence, whether … Rule 2—512(f)(1) ("The individuals to be impanelled as sworn jurors, including any alternates, shall be called from the qualified jurors remaining on the jury list in the order previously designated by the trial judge and

Corral v. Montgomery County

91 F. Supp. 3d 702 · District Court, D. Maryland · Mar 9, 2015

Both argued they were entitled to qualified immunity. … Smith and Bris-sett had not established that they were entitled to qualified immunity at this stage of the proceedings, and the claims against them in their individual capacities were permitted to proceed, along with the