Case law

Stith v. Hennings Jr.

District Court, D. Maryland · Sep 22, 2020

Qualified Immunity Defendants contend that Plaintiff’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims should be dismissed on the basis of qualified immunity. ECF 9 at 6-14. … Finally, even if this Court were to assume that some constitutional right had been violated by Defendants’ actions, the right was not clearly established, and Defendants would therefore be entitled to qualified immunity

Higgins v. State

64 Md. 419 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Dec 17, 1885

All the qualified voters, therefore, of that part of election district No. 3, now forming election district No. 6, had a right and were called upon to vote at the election of May, 1876, for or against the adoption of the … The repeal by mere implication of a former by a subsequent statute is never favored by the Courts, and it is only where they are clearly irreconcilable, and not susceptible of any such fair interpretation as will allow of

Carey v. Wolford

District Court, D. Maryland · May 5, 2023

“Qualified immunity shields government officials ‘who commit constitutional violations but who, in light of clearly established law, could reasonably believe that their actions were lawful.’” Hunter v. … Having found that Plaintiff’s allegations state a plausible claim under Counts II, IV, and V, Defendants’ qualified immunity claim turns on whether Plaintiff can show it was clearly established at the time Defendants stopped

Tserkis v. Baltimore County, Maryland

District Court, D. Maryland · Jul 23, 2021

was clearly established at the time.’” … 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.”

Doe 4 v. Montgomery County Board of Education

District Court, D. Maryland · Dec 23, 2021

Qualified Immunity The doctrine of qualified immunity protects state officials “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … As to the second prong of the qualified immunity inquiry, the Court considers whether the constitutional right Defendants Crouse and Sullivan allegedly violated was a “clearly established” right “of which a reasonable person

Algave v. Mayor and City Council of Ocean City

5 F. Supp. 2d 354 · District Court, D. Maryland · May 21, 1998

The defendant has filed a motion for summary judgment. 1 For the reasons stated below, the Court finds that (1) the defendant is immune from suit with respect to the tort claims; and (2) the plaintiffs have failed to establish … The obligation to cover Algave’s expenses might clearly extend for more than a year. Consequently, the contract as envisioned by the plaintiffs would have had to be in writing in order to satisfy the statute of frauds.

Samsun Corp. v. Bennett

154 Md. App. 59 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Dec 11, 2003

In Radman , a patient of the defendant physician attempted to have an internal medicine specialist qualified as an expert witness to establish that the defendant physician did not perform a total abdominal hysterectomy according … Osteria was properly qualified to testify as an expert witness, his testimony failed to establish causation between appellee’s erectile dysfunction and the accident at the Singer Exxon. Dr.

Carey v. State

155 Md. 474 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jun 5, 1928

Carey-replied, saying, “Well, you know me well enough to know that I don’t want any immunity or anything.” *479 It is contended by the defense that the evidence produced by the State was not sufficient to show that the statement … He had not qualified as an expert on the subject, and to have allowed him to answer the question, the court, by so doing, would have submitted, to his determination a question which the jury alone should have decided.

Faya v. Almaraz

329 Md. 435 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Mar 9, 1993

AIDS is thus the acute clinical phase of immune dysfunction. … We held that this evidence was legally sufficient to establish symptoms of a mental state evidencing a “physical injury.” Id.

Champ v. Baltimore County

884 F. Supp. 991 · District Court, D. Maryland · Apr 19, 1995

To establish a violation of either statute, Champ must show (1) that he has a disability; (2) that he is otherwise qualified for the job; and (3) that defendants placed him on disability retirement due to discrimination solely … The language of Administrative Rule 16-22 clearly indicates that assignment to light-duty is temporary.

Frey v. Comptroller of the Treasury

184 Md. App. 315 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Feb 26, 2009

The resulting tax inequality is clearly substantial. … Travis Manufacturing’s employees from those states did not qualify for the exemptions and the Supreme Court concluded that the New York law violated the Privileges and Immunities Clause: They [residents of Connecticut and

State v. Young

Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Mar 27, 2025

Md. 2021) (dismissing “on common law sovereign immunity grounds” and discussing Rosa). … Mullaly’s testimony to establish a Longtin claim against the State.

Jewell v. State

216 Md. 110 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Mar 24, 1958

conviction of the defendants of grand larceny of a shotgun has to be based on the belief that the gun had a value of one hundred dollars or more, we are unable to rule, on the evidence offered, that the lower court was clearly … The deputy was qualified to express an opinion with respect to the value of the gun as is shown by the preliminary examination conducted to establish his qualifications to testify as an “expert”.

Andre v. Montgomery County Personnel Board

37 Md. App. 48 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jul 12, 1977

Two applicants were rated ‘Well-Qualified’ and six were rated ‘Qualified’. Mr. Andre was among the eight qualified applicants, with a rating of ‘Qualified’. … The Board decided, “that the Department of Recreation and the Personnel Office acted with complete disregard for established merit system procedures with regard to the processing of applications, recruitment, selection, establishment

Duvall v. McGee

375 Md. 476 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jun 16, 2003

The defendant was the beneficiary under two spendthrift trust established by his late mother. … Clearly, any benefit McGee receives from the Trust vested prior to the commission of his criminal acts and is completely independent of, and separate from, his criminal conviction.

Lewis v. Campbell

District Court, D. Maryland · Aug 30, 2019

were lawful ‘in light of clearly established law.’” … Lott, 372 F.3d 267, 279 (4th Cir. 2004) (stating that, in applying the “clearly established” qualified immunity standard, courts “look ordinarily to ‘the decisions of the Supreme Court, [the] court of appeals, and the

Jones v. Jones

172 Md. App. 429 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jan 26, 2007

Jones was not entitled to qualified immunity; that Cpl. Jones was negligent in causing the decedent’s death; that the decedent was contributorily negligent; and that Cpl. … Defense counsel also made arguments about qualified immunity, which the court rejected.

Belyakov v. Medical Science & Computing

86 F. Supp. 3d 430 · District Court, D. Maryland · Feb 6, 2015

position for which he was qualified; (3) he was rejected despite being qualified; and (4) the position remained open or was filled by a similarly qualified applicant who was sub *442 stantially younger than the plaintiff … Although he apparently has established a prima facie case for age discrimination under the McDonnell Douglas framework, because he is over 40 years old, applied for a position for which he was ostensibly qualified, was not

Johnson v. Moore-McCormack Lines, Inc.

460 F. Supp. 1195 · District Court, D. Maryland · Nov 29, 1978

Although the trial judge in instructing the jury did not qualify the vessel’s immunity for “open and obvious” dangers in line with the modern rule, the court held this to be at most harmless error where the dangerous condition … Upon establishing that any of such conditions may exist, the employer shall ascertain from the officer in charge of the vessel, if he is properly equipped and qualified so to evaluate, the condition of the work place with

Zachair, Ltd. v. Driggs

965 F. Supp. 741 · District Court, D. Maryland · Jun 3, 1997

Zaehair’s very allegations establish that the Driggs defendants have a unity of interests under the Copperweld standard and may avail themselves of the intracorporate immunity doctrine. … Proof of these two components deprives a defendant of immunity (i.e., “Noerr immunity”) from antitrust liability for seeking governmental redress.