Case law

McKenstry

District Court, D. Maryland · Feb 26, 2026

Qualified Immunity Defendants assert they are entitled to qualified immunity because, among other things, it was not clearly established at the time of the incident that … Officers are immune from liability “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have been known.” (quoting Harlow v.

Kasdon v. G. W. Zierden Landscaping, Inc.

512 F. Supp. 172 · District Court, D. Maryland · Apr 2, 1981

The Ninth Circuit view is clearly correct. Section 1444 expressly grants removal jurisdiction to federal courts of suits brought in state courts against the United States under § 2410. … Whether the United States may prevail either (a) because section 2410(a) is not applicable and the United States is immune from these suits or (b) if immunity has been waived by the United States, on the merits, does not

Levitt & Sons, Inc. v. Prince George County Congress of Racial Equality

221 F. Supp. 541 · District Court, D. Maryland · Sep 17, 1963

In the Gully case, the Supreme Court said: “To bring a case within the statute, a right or immunity created by the Constitution or laws of the United States must be an element, and an essential one, of the plaintiff’s cause … Burlington Local No. 522, D.Vt., 106 F.Supp. 138 , “[t]his is clearly a case where the plaintiff has sought common law relief in the State Courts of the State of [Maryland].

Paylor

District Court, D. Maryland · Oct 30, 2025

“One such situation is when the individual defendants are entitled to qualified immunity.” … Evans’ constitutional rights, and that those rights were not clearly established, such that the Officers are entitled to qualified immunity.

Kralowec v. Prince George's County, Md.

503 F. Supp. 985 · District Court, D. Maryland · Nov 17, 1980

While the record establishes that plaintiff had no more than minimal supervisory experience, 18 defendant clearly did not consider such experience per se to be an unalterable prerequisite to the job. … Evidence in the record does not clearly establish that plaintiff had demonstrated such capacity to supervise to the selecting officer, Ogene.

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

129 Md. App. 588 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jan 4, 2000

With respect to the fourth factor, the Tax Court clearly considered it, but its conclusion is less clear. … In Rivera , this Court considered whether the State Health Department, a governmental agency, was a charitable organization for purposes of charitable immunity.

Sneed v. Bankhead

District Court, D. Maryland · Jan 13, 2022

An officer enjoys the defense of qualified immunity when his conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” McDaniel v. … Qualified immunity requires the officer to demonstrate either that he did not violate the constitutional rights of the plaintiff, or that if he did, no clearly established law exists such that he would have known his conduct

Hillman v. Soroye

District Court, D. Maryland · Nov 16, 2021

actions were lawful in light of clearly established law.” … inmates attempted to harm him, were not shielded by qualified immunity.

Fields v. State

172 Md. App. 496 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Feb 2, 2007

He asserts that the State was able to resolve its immunity issues within one day when the proceedings would not go forward unless it did so and the immunity of witnesses was raised over five months before the scheduled February … As we have mentioned, Wilson and McCoy are unable to establish that the delay, clearly of constitutional dimension, in any way impaired their ability to present their defense.

Foster v. State

304 Md. 439 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Nov 12, 1985

Prosecutorial authorities had promised her immunity in exchange for her testimony. … With guilt having already been established by the first jury, there would be no prejudice in the second, sentencing jury, being ‘death-qualified’.

McGuire v. Amrein

101 F. Supp. 414 · District Court, D. Maryland · Nov 29, 1951

They also say that interception of such messages has not deprived the plaintiffs “of any right, privilege or immunity secured ,by the Constitution of the United States or by any Act of Congress providing for equal rights … But it is clearly not necessary to the.disposition of the instant case to decide this point, nor appropriate to express any opinion thereon.

Small v. Schaefer

24 Md. 143 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Mar 3, 1866

Morrison in these *159 terms: “In the latter case, all the authorities are fully reviewed in the opinion of the Court, and the rule of law clearly vindicated and established. … The facts bring the case clearly within the well known exceptions, to the operation of that statute.

Carter v. Lewis

District Court, D. Maryland · Sep 29, 2025

“Qualified immunity protects government officials from civil damages ina § 1983 action insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would … To overcome an assertion of qualified immunity from a § 1983 claim, a plaintiff must show that (1) the government official violated a federally protected right of the plaintiff; and (2) that right was clearly established

Lynch v. Lynch

33 Md. 328 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Dec 5, 1870

Cruelty of treatment, which is only ground for a qualified divorce, must not be allowed, when used as a justification for living separate from the offending party, to be made the ground for a final divorce. … Thus showing that the abandonment of the marital relation is not less deliberate and final on the part of the party complaining *331 than on the part of the party complained against; and under such circumstances, clearly,

In re: K.Y.B.

Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Aug 30, 2019

immunizations.” … evidence, the chancellor granted legal and physical custody to the father, granted liberal visitation rights to mother, and ordered the father to allow the children to attend a Jewish day school as long as the children qualified

Hurwitz v. State

200 Md. 578 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Oct 4, 2001

But by a course of decisions running through a space of more than four hundred years, from the reign of Edward III, to the 59 of George III, without a single conflicting adjudication, these points are clearly settled: — ” … The evidence does not show any grant of immunity to Garonzik and Slipka, but it may be assumed as a matter of law that under the statute they automatically obtained immunity by testifying.

Williams v. North

685 F. Supp. 502 · District Court, D. Maryland · Mar 30, 1988

JUDICIAL IMMUNITY The doctrine of judicial immunity, long honored at common law, was adopted in this country in Bradley v. Fisher, 80 U.S. (13 Wall.) 335 , 20 L.Ed. 646 (1871). … Allen, 466 U.S. 522, 541-42 , 104 S.Ct. 1970, 1980-81 , 80 L.Ed.2d 565 (1984), he has failed, as to each of the defendant judges, “to establish the basic requisites of the issuance of equitable relief in these circumstances

Harden v. Mass Transit Administration

27 Md. App. 590 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jul 25, 1975

Appellants brush aside the suggested defense of the State’s immunity to suit upon the ground that such immunity was waived by statute in that: (1) Article 64B, § 8 a declares that the Administration shall: “Have perpetual … We do not, however, see this case as one turning upon a question of immunity to suit and do not reach the issue.

Corporal v. Pennington

District Court, D. Maryland · Jul 30, 2021

If the evidence establishes a violation of a constitutional right, the second prong is to assess whether the right was “clearly established” at the time of the events at issue. Id. … If the right was not clearly established, the qualified immunity doctrine shields a defendant officer from liability.

Raitt v. Johns Hopkins Hospital

274 Md. 489 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Apr 14, 1975

These comments, together with all those previously made by the court, clearly reveal that the sole ground for the directed verdict was an interpretation of Dunham to the effect that the out-of-state physicians were precluded … There is little reason to doubt appellant’s ability to establish this element of her case — by testimony or proffer — had she been permitted to reach that point.