Case law

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.

Canaan Christian Church v. Montgomery Cnty.

335 F. Supp. 3d 758 · District Court, D. Maryland · Aug 15, 2018

In Moxley , the Court was addressing the defendant's motion to dismiss and the question of legislative immunity. … To the extent that the County Executive and staff are cloaked with legislative immunity, his motivations are also of no import.

Lewis v. Baltimore Convention Center

231 Md. App. 144 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Dec 1, 2016

Sovereign immunity functions differently in contract. H. Dean Bouland, Recent Legislation: Abrogation of Sovereign Immunity in Contract Cases in Maryland, 6 U. Balt. L. Rev. 338, 342 (1977). … The Class decided for its own reasons to pursue claims in federal court before suing in state 3 Art. 23A § 1A was, and CJ § 5-5A-01 is, the provision waiving sovereign immunity and establishing a one year limitations

Spell v. State

7 Md. App. 121 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jun 3, 1969

In rebuttal Catania denied that he or any officer in his presence had offered the appellant immunity from prosecution of other offenses if he gave a statement as to any one particular offense and offered him no immunity whatsoever … clearly erroneous.

Britton v. Bullen

275 F. Supp. 756 · District Court, D. Maryland · Nov 13, 1967

That the intent and effect of the jury selection system, by longstanding and established practices, and as actually and systematically practiced and applied by the Defendants under color of such State laws, rules, customs … “The question may be plainly unsubstantial, either because it is ‘obviously without merit’ or because ‘its unsoundness so clearly results from the previous decisions of this court as to foreclose the subject and leave no

Sp v. City of Takoma Park, Md.

950 F. Supp. 705 · District Court, D. Maryland · Jan 13, 1997

clear and imminent danger of hurting herself or others or that less restrictive alternatives to her commitment were not available. 1 Plaintiff’s claims against the individual officers have been dismissed on the ground of qualified … immunity.

Murray v. Conley

124 Md. 218 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Nov 11, 1914

The probate of a will establishes the factum of the will, which then speaks and takes effect from the time of the death *222 of the testator. Buchanan v. Turner, 26 Md. 1 ; Wilcoxen v. Reese, 63 Md. 542 . M. … This is the principle generally recognized in respect to the title of an executor, and it is the one firmly established in. this State. In Winchester v.

White v. Spring

109 Md. App. 692 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · May 6, 1996

Standard of Review The Court of Appeals, in a case involving a denial of a use permit, stated, “It is a clearly established rule in the law of zoning that a court may not substitute its judgment for that of the Zoning Board … Commission ... concurred with my determination that the proposed change ... qualifies as a refinement to the County’s Critical Area Program.

In Re Mutual Security Savings & Loan Ass'n, Inc.

214 F. Supp. 877 · District Court, D. Maryland · Mar 13, 1963

Thus, even if we were to assume that the immunity applies to both contra Czarlinsky, it is clear the immunity so provided is not broad enough to prevent invocation of the Fifth Amendment privilege, Arndstein, supra. … United States, 340 U.S. 367 [ 71 S.Ct. 438 , 95 L.Ed. 344 ] (1951) and to require him to answer if ‘it clearly appears to the court that he is mistaken.’ Temple v. Commonwealth, 75 Va. 892, 899 (1881).

Savage v. Baltimore City Community College

District Court, D. Maryland · Mar 7, 2024

INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS AND QUALIFIED IMMUNITY Government officials sued in their individual capacities under § 1983 are immune from claims for damages if their conduct does not violate clearly established … Whether qualified immunity applies requires examination of (1) whether the alleged facts establish a violation of a constitutional right, and (2) whether the right at issue was “clearly established” at the time of the defendant

Phillips v. State

451 Md. 180 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jan 20, 2017

Dep’t of Fin., 450 Md. 177, 187 (2016) (“We give due regard to the trial court’s role as fact-finder and will not set aside factual findings unless they are clearly erroneous.” (quoting Breeding v. … As long as the laboratory’s procedures have been validated by standards previously established by one of these entities, and the analysis is performed in accordance with those validated procedures, then the analysis qualifies

Gibson v. United States Lines

74 F. Supp. 776 · District Court, D. Maryland · Dec 10, 1947

And I think it clearly inferable that the intention of the Legislature in passing the Act of 1941 was to make it clear that if foreign corporations did qualify or register with the State Tax Commission, they would not merely … The constitutional point of immunity from suit is not advanced in the motions.

Nixon v. State

96 Md. App. 485 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jun 4, 1993

Hawkins was qualified to teach in two departments, while appellant was qualified to teach in only one. Dr. … Appellant’s oral testimony establishes that under the merit system she was not as qualified as Dr. Hawkins and, in any event, did not meet the requirements for advancement.

Wilson v. State

181 Md. 1 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jun 17, 1942

But while guilt cannot generally be established by proving that the defendant has committed other crimes, nevertheless it is firmly established that evidence of declarations and acts may be admitted to show intent, or a common … scheme embracing the commission of two or more crimes so related to each other that proof of one tends to establish the other.

Neal-Williams v. Daramy

District Court, D. Maryland · Jul 16, 2024

was clearly established at the time.’” … Owens, 575 U.S. 983 (2015), the Fourth Circuit reiterated: “Qualified immunity protects government officials from liability for ‘civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or

Mass Transit Administration v. Maryland Commission on Human Relations

68 Md. App. 703 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Oct 10, 1986

Whether the doctrine of sovereign immunity precludes the imposition of a back-pay award against the MTA. VI. Whether the court erred in awarding prejudgment interest. VII. … , therefore, failed to establish a prima facie case for handicap discrimination.

Himelstein v. Arrow Cab

113 Md. App. 530 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Feb 3, 1997

Although appellees believe that our standard of review should be to determine whether the trial judge was “clearly erroneous” in her fact finding mission, this case clearly involves our determination of whether the trial … SELF-INSURED TAXICAB ASSOCIATIONS Every vehicle registered in Maryland must have liabili-. ty insurance “to promote the established legislative policy ... *537 that seeks to assure that victims of automobile accidents have

Lewis v. Adelowo

District Court, D. Maryland · Sep 13, 2024

As for qualified immunity, government officials sued in their individual capacity may invoke qualified immunity. Bland v. Roberts, 730 F.3d 368, 391 (4th Cir. 2013). … “Qualified immunity protects government officials from civil damages in a § 1983 action insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would

Ashburn v. Anne Arundel County

306 Md. 617 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jul 10, 1986

Appellant argues that Officer Freeberger is not immune from suit under the doctrine of public official immunity because Freeberger negligently failed to perform the mandatory (as opposed to discretionary) act of detaining … Appellees respond that the doctrine of public official immunity precludes suit by appellant against Officer Freeberger.

McClanahan v. Washington County Department of Social Services

218 Md. App. 258 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jul 31, 2014

Immunity Finally, appellant claims that she should be granted immunity, because she was required to report child abuse to the Department. Again, appellant failed to raise such issue before the ALJ. … A legal defense, such as immunity, that does not appear in the statute or in the implementing regulations does not qualify as integral and can be waived. Thus appellant’s immunity claim has not been preserved.