Case law

Rosenberg v. Helinski

328 Md. 664 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Dec 14, 1992

His statements in court are immune from suit. B. … Rosenberg’s transcription fails to indicate that the news report clearly identified both Mrs. and Mr. Helinski by name.

Reed v. Sears, Roebuck & Co.

934 F. Supp. 713 · District Court, D. Maryland · Aug 16, 1996

. § 5-311 (“sealed container defense”) immunizes it from liability as to all of plaintiffs’ claims. … Clearly, there are no restrictions or qualifying limitations placed on the nature of the action that may be dismissed once a seller has established the requisite elements of the defense.

Summerville v. Neckson

District Court, D. Maryland · Jun 14, 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 constitutional

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 .

Perkins v. Smith

370 F. Supp. 134 · District Court, D. Maryland · Jan 28, 1974

Section 6(b) reads, in relevant part: . . . the jury judge shall deem any person qualified to serve on grand or petit juries unless he— (i) Is not constitutionally qualified to vote in this State in the county wherein the … There is a clearly definable minority of native born citizens who speak, write and understand only a language other than English.

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

Kearney v. Berger

416 Md. 628 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Oct 28, 2010

Our decision in Carroll therefore established that a case must be dismissed if the plaintiff has not filed a certificate of qualified expert, even if one of the parties has unilaterally waived HCADRO arbitration. 9 Our adherence … An abuse of discretion may also be found where the ruling under consideration is clearly against the logic and effect of facts and inferences before the court or when the ruling is violative of fact and logic.

Nichols v. Comcast Cablevision of Maryland

84 F. Supp. 2d 642 · District Court, D. Maryland · Jan 19, 2000

Nichols has not established that Com-cast’s reasons are pretextual or that he was better qualified for the position. … A-6 at 57-58). 26 .With respect to Nichols’ claim that management would not meet with him, as noted above, Nichols clearly has not established a prima facie case.

Saltz v. City of Frederick, Maryland

District Court, D. Maryland · May 10, 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.

Trantham v. Prince George's County, MD

District Court, D. Maryland · Feb 16, 2022

“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.” Wilson v. … Trantham’s Fourth Amendment rights were violated, Corporal Fulton and Officer Ige are entitled to qualified immunity because Defendants have established that their conduct did not violate clearly established statutory or

Preston v. State

444 Md. 67 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jul 27, 2015

Witnesses “with a past” might exchange their testimony for a favorable plea deal arising from the case in which they are to testify or a related matter, or qualified or absolute immunity. … She stated that, after drinking the liquor, she recalled being able to see and think clearly.

Bennett v. Foxwell of E.C.I.

District Court, D. Maryland · Jan 9, 2020

Qualified immunity “shields government officials from liability for civil damages, provided that their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights within the knowledge of a reasonable … A court deciding if qualified immunity applies must determine “whether a constitutional violation occurred,” and “whether the right violated was clearly established” at the time of the events in question. Tobey v.

Foldi v. Board of Education Montgomery County Public Schools

District Court, D. Maryland · Sep 17, 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 … Because it appears well-settled that alleged viewpoint discrimination amounts to a clearly established First Amendment violation, the Pride Members are not entitled to qualified immunity.

Wiggins v. State

22 Md. App. 291 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Aug 7, 1974

Baltimore City, on the other hand, chose to retain the provision of its local law first enacted in 1902, 2 *293 which established 16 as the maximum age for juvenile jurisdiction in Baltimore City. … Sovereign Immunity Appellant argues that we should refuse to recognize the State’s immunity from suit since “ . . . neither the purpose of this doctrine nor justice is served by applying it to the instant circumstances.”

Melissa and Daniel Willey v. Board of Education of St. Mary's County

District Court, D. Maryland · Jun 5, 2023

Qualified immunity is an affirmative defense to § 1983 claims that “protects government officials ‘from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … established at the time of the shooting, and the defendants would be entitled to qualified immunity.

Federal Sav. and Loan Ins. Corp. v. Williams

599 F. Supp. 1184 · District Court, D. Maryland · Dec 5, 1984

The United States has not Waived its Immunity and thus a Counterclaim for Damages may not be Maintained It is a well settled principle of law that the United States, as sovereign, is immune from suit except where it has consented … The immunity conferred upon the agents’ actions is not limited by the purpose of the actions: The decisions have, indeed, always imposed as a limitation upon the immunity that the official’s act must have been within the

Kleger v. Dorchester County, Maryland

District Court, D. Maryland · Jul 23, 2024

Young’s constitutional rights and certainly not any rights that were clearly established.” (ECF No. 41-1 at 7). … Young— dismissal on qualified immunity grounds is improper at this time.

McAdory v. Scientific Research Instruments, Inc.

355 F. Supp. 468 · District Court, D. Maryland · Feb 23, 1973

McAdory was informed that the company did not have a position available for which she was qualified. … Clearly the standards used by SRI are those qualifications needed by a wire-assembler who must work under a minimum of supervision and who must insure his own quality control.

Downs v. ROMAN CATH. ARCHBISHOP OF BALT.

111 Md. App. 616 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Sep 25, 1996

Even where the dispute actually presented to the court is one that, if presented by any other set of litigants, would clearly be justiciable, if the resolution of that dispute between the litigants at hand would require the … We need not go as far as the Yaggie Court and hold that “all matters” touching the clergyman/church relationship are of ecclesiastical concern, immune from civil jurisdiction.

Scott-Brown v. Cohen

220 F. Supp. 2d 504 · District Court, D. Maryland · Sep 2, 2002

(PL’s Opp’n 11-14) In addition, Plaintiff posits that Defendant was clearly on notice as to the claim, as evidenced by its request for dismissal in Defendant’s first motion to dismiss in March 2001. … In the case at hand, advanced sick leave is offered to DCAA employees on a regular basis, thereby qualifying as a benefit under Title VII.