Case law

Saltz v. City of Frederick, Maryland

District Court, D. Maryland · Aug 16, 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. … Defendants assert that the individual defendants are entitled to qualified immunity because “their conduct did not violate clearly established law.” ECF 16-1 at 37.

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.

State v. Bricker

321 Md. 86 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Oct 29, 1990

If “the language in question [is] so clearly consistent with apparent purpose (and not productive of any absurd result) ... further research [is] unnecessary.” Kaczorowski v. … Clearly, Dr. Schultze could have testified in this capacity. It is improper, however, for a layman to testify on the “ultimate issue” of the defendant’s sanity.

Comptroller of the Treasury, Income Tax Division v. First United Bank & Trust

320 Md. 352 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Aug 30, 1990

Congress knows how to express clearly an intent that income, distributed from one entity to another, retain, after distribution, the same character which the income had when received by the distributing entity. … Such conduit treatment is achieved by allowing a qualifying RIC to deduct the amount of dividends paid to its shareholders in computing the RIC’s taxable income, with the result that the RIC’s distributed net income can be

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

Van Slyke v. Northrop Grumman Corp.

115 F. Supp. 2d 587 · District Court, D. Maryland · Sep 18, 2000

Plaintiff is clearly a member of a protected class. … Such evidence does nothing to establish that Plaintiff is more qualified — the burden which plaintiff must satisfy at the pretext stage.

MacY v. Trans World Airlines, Inc.

381 F. Supp. 142 · District Court, D. Maryland · Sep 3, 1974

Maryland has, in a number of circumstances, adopted the doctrine of qualified privilege. … Clearly Orrison is not a hero to Vance and there is little doubt Orrison considers Vance a low fellow. But, in these circumstances, this is not evidence of ill-will.” 262 Md. at 295 , 277 A.2d at 578 .

Essex Insurance v. Hoffman

168 F. Supp. 2d 547 · District Court, D. Maryland · Oct 15, 2001

This brochure clearly reveals that T-Up views its products as being useful in fighting diseases, including cancer. … Defendants also attempt to establish various links between Horan Goldman and Essex that they argue are suggestive of agency.

Walzer v. Osborne

395 Md. 563 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Nov 17, 2006

The General Assembly, when it enacted this provision, clearly intended for claims to be dismissed if the claimant failed to file the certificate of qualified expert within 90 days of filing the complaint. … Where the General Assembly has provided a special form of remedy and has established a statutory procedure before an administrative agency for a special kind of case, a litigant must ordinarily pursue that form of remedy

Scott v. Montgomery County Government

164 F. Supp. 2d 502 · District Court, D. Maryland · Aug 30, 2001

The CBA clearly states that “all qualified employees with disabilities in need of reassignment” have the right “to be considered for vacancies at or below the grade level they hold.” … Taking the facts in the light most favorable to Scott, the record clearly establishes that Montgomery County acted in good faith.

Marshall v. Haney

4 Md. 498 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Dec 15, 1853

Apart from the doubt which we entertain, whether the party would be permitted thus to qualify, if not to contradict his covenant, we cannot discover the relevancy of this evidence to any issue in the cause. … The declarations of an agent are not admissible to bind his principal under any circumstances, until the agency is first clearly established, which has not been done in this instance.

Little v. Haddaway-Riccio

District Court, D. Maryland · Sep 26, 2019

But, an official is not entitled to qualified immunity if he deprived an individual of a constitutional right and that right was clearly established at the time of the violation. Id. … 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.”

State v. Coleman

423 Md. 666 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Dec 15, 2011

The former language, a “residential unit which is not completed,” clearly denotes an unfinished unit, which did not exist on the land that Coleman conveyed. … Thus, "a recital that the Legislature in the past really intended what is now being enacted into law, cannot render a statute immune from constitutional challenge on retroactivity grounds.” Id.

LaSalle Bank, N.A. v. Reeves

173 Md. App. 392 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Mar 2, 2007

The List is maintained by the Department of the Interior (“DOI”) and the DOI is granted jurisdiction to add to, or delete from, the list particular tribes or nations, in compliance with the procedures established by the federal … Those statements clearly reflect the state of Maryland law.

Howard v. Skinner

40 L.R.A. 753 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · May 13, 1898

There was other evidence tending to establish the qualification of the appellant, as a voter, but as it is conceded that he possessed all the necessary qualifications prescribed by the Constitution of the State, except that … The case of Collins, 64 Howard’s Practice Reports, 63, relied upon by the appellant, is clearly distinguishable from the case at bar.

Marcas, L.L.C v. Board of County Commissioners

817 F. Supp. 2d 692 · District Court, D. Maryland · Sep 28, 2011

Marcas rejects the County’s suggestion that it qualifies as an “arm of the state.” “[Ojnly States and arms of the State possess immunity from suits authorized by federal law.” Northern Ins. Co. of New York v. … The first element is established.

Blondes v. State

16 Md. App. 165 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Sep 11, 1972

“This case is not a blanket holding by any means, because it is not before me, of members of the legislature who might be on salaries or on established retainers. … In fact, this was not a statutory change but an evolution of the common law firmly established in both England and the United States at the time of the adoption of the Maryland statute.

Clark v. Carder

District Court, D. Maryland · Aug 11, 2021

Daddysman separately argues that he is entitled to qualified immunity on this claim as his alleged conduct did not violate a clearly established constitutional right. … Where such conduct, if proven, would violate clearly established law, the Court will not grant summary judgment to Sgt. Daddysman based on qualified immunity. VI.

Dunbar v. Gilpin

District Court, D. Maryland · Mar 11, 2020

Qualified Immunity The correctional officers argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity on Dunbar’s □ Eighth Amendment Claim. … The correctional officers argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity because Dunbar had. no “clearly established” right to be free of their reasonable use of force: (Mot. at 17).

Kent Island Joint Venture v. Smith

452 F. Supp. 455 · District Court, D. Maryland · Jun 8, 1978

These allegations are clearly insufficient to establish a taking in the constitutional sense. Goldblatt v. Town of Hempstead, supra; United States v. Central Eureka Mining Co., supra; Steel Hill Development, Inc. v. … It is well established that abstention by a federal court is the exception and not the rule.