Case law

Waterman v. Batton

294 F. Supp. 2d 709 · District Court, D. Maryland · Dec 11, 2003

Clearly Established Right Although the plaintiffs have proffered evidence of a violation of a constitutional right, the defendant officers nonetheless are entitled to qualified immunity if that right was not clearly established … The plaintiffs have proffered sufficient evidence to establish a violation of Josh Waterman’s Fourth Amendment rights, and the defendant officers are not entitled to qualified immunity because these rights were clearly established

Fox v. Wills

390 Md. 620 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jan 18, 2006

needed to overcome qualified immunity. … The Circuit Court granted the motion to dismiss, stating “that there is clearly privilege here or immunity, whether it is qualified or quasi-judicial.” 4 The plaintiff appealed, and the Court of Special Appeals affirmed,

Holloway-Johnson v. Beall

220 Md. App. 195 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Nov 25, 2014

A damages cap simply establishes that governmental immunity is not being waived above the level of the cap. There is absolutely nothing that Off. … For one thing, the fact that it is an alternative to gross negligence, which also will defeat the qualified immunity, indicates clearly - 33 -  that the Legislature

Laws v. Thompson

78 Md. App. 665 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Apr 26, 1989

We will consider the qualified immunity first. … There is a distinc *677 tion between qualified immunity and absolute immunity.

Davis v. DiPino

121 Md. App. 28 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Apr 16, 1998

In § 1983 actions where qualified immunity is at issue, it has been the rule that the plaintiff bears the burden of showing that the fact-specific constitutional right allegedly violated was clearly established at the time … to qualified immunity on summary judgment.

Goehring v. United States

870 F. Supp. 106 · District Court, D. Maryland · Dec 7, 1994

,” i.e. he is shielded from liability to the extent that his conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … That contention proves too much: all things are possible and if mere possibility is all that is required to establish a qualified immunity defense, law enforcement officials would have virtually unlimited license to use deadly

Dorsey v. Ruth

222 F. Supp. 2d 753 · District Court, D. Maryland · Sep 23, 2002

Further, the time frame established by Gruber’s statement does not clearly support Dorsey’s position. … Qualified Immunity Although Officer Ruth did not raise the issue, he enjoys qualified immunity against Dorsey’s suit.

Downey v. Collins

866 F. Supp. 887 · District Court, D. Maryland · Oct 12, 1994

Certainly this holding, which defines the outer boundary of a government employee’s qualified immunity, must also apply to state and local employees. … While the answer filed for Collins suggests a defense of qualified immunity, the motion itself only addresses sovereign immunity as to the liability of Anne Arundel County. 5 .

Arrow Cab v. Himelstein

348 Md. 558 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Feb 9, 1998

Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services, “The applicability of sovereign *570 immunity in a particular case, therefore, turns on: (1) whether the entity asserting immunity qualifies for its protection; and, … The flaw in Petitioners’ argument is that they are not entitled to the defense of sovereign immunity and they do not qualify for its protection.

(2008)

93 Op. Att'y Gen. 68 · Maryland Attorney General Reports · May 1, 2008

Qualified Immunity under the Maryland Tort Claims Act The Maryland Tort Claims Act ("MTCA") provides a qualified immunity that protects a State officer or employee from claims based on "a tortuous act or omission that is … hold that a settlement officer is entitled, at a minimum, to qualified immunity and probably to absolute quasi-judicial immunity.

TOLLENGER v. State

199 Md. App. 586 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jul 5, 2011

That does not follow, and clearly such a broad exemption from the State’s waiver of sovereign immunity was not intended by the drafters of the MTCA. … and (3), if the Act does grant such qualified immunity, whether the plaintiffs evidence of malice was sufficient to generate a triable issue as to whether the immunity was defeated.

Jackson v. Millstone

369 Md. 575 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jun 21, 2002

Taurus Jackson currently qualifies for medical assistance in Maryland as either categorically or medically needy, and he “may select any ... category for which technical eligibility may be established.” … Jessica Nettles was 14 years old when she was diagnosed with liver failure, chronic hepatitis, and an immune deficiency disease. She was qualified for medicaid benefits.

Clea v. Mayor of Baltimore

312 Md. 662 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jun 9, 1988

In Maryland, a limited category of governmental personnel, including police officers, are entitled under certain circumstances to qualified immunity from tort liability for their negligent conduct. … Once it is established that the individual is a public official and the tort was committed while performing a duty which involves the exercise of discretion, a qualified immunity attaches; namely, in the absence of malice

Shadburne v. Dalkon Shield Trust

851 F. Supp. 712 · District Court, D. Maryland · May 19, 1994

The Fourth Circuit, recently summarized the law of qualified immunity: Qualified immunity shields a governmental official from liability for civil monetary damages if the officer’s “conduct does not violate clearly established … Under the facts of this case, defendant is clearly entitled to qualified immunity. IV.

Gersh v. Ambrose

291 Md. 188 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Sep 9, 1981

This is the same reason the privilege granted is absolute, rather than qualified, i.e., defeasible by malice, for all protected participants in the judicial proceeding. See, e.g., Butz v. … The cumulative effect of the safeguards which attended the proceedings was such that the public interest sought to be advanced by providing the immunity clearly outweighed the harm of subjecting the individual to possible

Henry v. Purnell

559 F. Supp. 2d 648 · District Court, D. Maryland · Jun 17, 2008

immunity.” … Thus, the fact that Maryland does not recognize qualified immunity for state constitutional violations, id., is of no moment in this case. 2 . Citing Pappas v.

Gill v. Ripley

352 Md. 754 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Feb 16, 1999

It observed as well that, ordinarily, qualified immunity is sufficient to protect government officials in the exercise of their duties and that officials seeking absolute immunity had the burden of showing that absolute immunity … Only qualified immunity applied. The prosecutors fared no better with respect to their press conference statements.

Jones v. Murphy

470 F. Supp. 2d 537 · District Court, D. Maryland · Jan 4, 2007

Qualified Immunity The Wardens also claim qualified immunity with respect to all allegations against them. … presentment is a clearly established violation of constitutional rights.

Ross v. Cecil County Department of Social Services

878 F. Supp. 2d 606 · District Court, D. Maryland · Jul 12, 2012

Qualified immunity must be pled by the defendant official. Id. at 815. Once the official raises a qualified immunity defense, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to show that the official’s conduct violated the law. … on whether the constitutional right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation. 15 The Fourth Circuit has emphasized “the importance of resolving the question of qualified immunity at the summary judgment

Cole v. PRINCE GEORGE'S COUNTY, MD.

798 F. Supp. 2d 739 · District Court, D. Maryland · Jul 26, 2011

to overcome Defendants’ qualified-immunity defense. … Furthermore, qualified immunity protects government officials from “liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person