Case law

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Browning-Ferris, Inc.

262 F. Supp. 2d 577 · District Court, D. Maryland · Sep 17, 2002

The evidence establishes that Ms. … Talusan’s opinion would not necessarily immunize it from liability. As discussed above, there are genuine issues of material fact as to whether Dr.

Fontell v. Hassett

870 F. Supp. 2d 395 · District Court, D. Maryland · Jun 28, 2012

FDCPA Claims In order for Defendants to be liable for FDCPA violations, they must qualify as “debt collectors” under the FDCPA. … These facts alone are insufficient to establish that Defendants should have known their claims were time-barred from the time they initiated suit.

Fenby v. Johnson

21 Md. 106 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Feb 24, 1864

Eenhy and James Stirrat, the executors named in the will, qualified as such, returned an inventory and accounted with the Orphans’ Court. … It does not clearly appear whether this ground-rent was a part of the property taken by the executors from S.

Williams v. Baltimore County Detention Center

District Court, D. Maryland · Jul 29, 2024

was clearly established at the time.’” … violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’”

Menefee v. State

417 Md. 740 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jan 24, 2011

After hearing oral arguments, the Circuit Court granted the State’s motion, explaining that “I think clearly the intent of the legislature was that in this particular instance, with this set of facts, that the proper party … Way of the National Capital Area to House Appropriations Committee (21 March 1996) (‘We have frequently pointed out the repetitive, time consuming, costly and unnecessary trips that applicants are required to endure to establish

Ligon v. State of Md.

448 F. Supp. 935 · District Court, D. Maryland · Nov 23, 1977

Does the record establish that the District Council’s adoption of this sectional map amendment is discriminatory, arbitrary, capricious and illegal, and 3. … New Castle County, 293 F.Supp. 237 (D.Del. 1968) (absolute immunity); with, e. g., Nelson v. Knox, 256 F.2d 312, 315 (6th Cir. 1958) (qualified good faith privilege).

Benson v. Mellor

152 Md. 481 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Feb 17, 1927

mode of filling the vacancy is ‘clearly and explicitly provided.’ ” These authorities seem to us conclusive. *491 It has been, emphasized here, as in earlier cases, that such an effect given to the holding over by an incumbent … We should be open, however, to just censure if, to meet the supposed exigencies of the particular case, we were to deal lightly with principles long established and approved by the eminent jurists that have preceded us.”

Canton Harbor Healthcare v. Robinson

Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jul 29, 2025

This is clearly a determination that reads requirements into the HCMCA that do not exist. … It is well settled in Maryland that qualified expert testimony is necessary to establish two elements: (1) the breach of the standard of care; and (2) causation.

Townsend v. Kurtz

83 Md. 331 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jun 19, 1896

policy of the State to continue in office for the term the incumbent who has been elected or appointed for a definite term, provided he competently and faithfully performs the duties of the office, unless there is something clearly … in office, and such charges should be 1 fully established when made.

Steffey v. State

82 Md. App. 647 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · May 7, 1990

The central question in this appeal is whether a violation of a police officer’s immunity under § 728(b)(7)(ii) of the Law Enforcement Officers’ Bill of Rights (LEOBOR), Md. Ann. … Such statements clearly do not qualify as an objection to the trial judge’s amended instruction that followed.

Nolan

District Court, D. Maryland · Mar 27, 2026

“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 … 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

Walker v. State

373 Md. 360 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Mar 12, 2003

We qualified our holding in Bradley by stating that “our holding is not applicable where there is no clearly independent area of inquiry or where failure to inquire into a possibly independent area of inquiry could create … The State specifically arranged for federal immunity in response to Myrick's request that he be given immunity from prosecution under sections 18 and 21 of the United States Code dealing with drugs and general criminal offenses

Cooper v. Doyle

District Court, D. Maryland · Oct 16, 2024

a court decides only the clearly-established prong” (quoting Tolan v. Cotton, 572 U.S. 650, 134 S.Ct. 1861, 1866, 188 L.Ed.2d 895 (2014))). … On appeal, the Fourth Circuit reversed in part,3 finding that the officer was entitled to qualified immunity. Id. at 407.

Neuberger Berman Real Estate Income Fund, Inc. v. Lola Brown Trust No. 1B

230 F.R.D. 398 · District Court, D. Maryland · Jun 23, 2005

A party claiming work product immunity must still establish the underlying nexus between the preparation of the document and the specific litigation.” Burton, 175 F.R.D. at 328 . … or immunity that is claimed.

Obi v. ANNE ARUNDEL COUNTY, MD

142 F. Supp. 2d 655 · District Court, D. Maryland · May 1, 2001

Obi makes four arguments in his attempt to show pretext: (1) Tait was not minimally qualified and Obi was clearly the most qualified candidate; (2) defendant violated DPW policies in the selection and interview process; ( … Obi’s apparent goal in making this claim is to show that because defendant selected someone who was not even minimally qualified for the position over an individual in a protected class who was clearly qualified, discriminatory

Hauk v. LVNV FUNDING, LLC

749 F. Supp. 2d 358 · District Court, D. Maryland · Nov 5, 2010

Wolpoff & Abramson, 485 F.3d 226, 230 (4th Cir.2007) (holding that “there is no blanket common law litigation immunity from the requirements of the FDCPA”). … LVNV remains free at a later stage to present evidence that the burden of the licensing requirement is clearly excessive to the local benefits.

In Re Arnold M.

298 Md. 515 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Feb 8, 1984

That, in our view, is the legislature’s intended meaning of the term as used in § 3-829, qualified only by the exclusion of mothers and fathers not in custody of the juvenile at the time of the delinquent act. … The State’s Attorney’s arguments in support of the juvenile court’s decision, as previously set forth, are similarly flawed; they are clearly contrary to the plain meaning rule of statutory interpretation.

Koontz v. Kimberley

District Court, D. Maryland · Sep 17, 2019

Qualified immunity protects government officials from suit for damages when their conduct does not violate a “clearly established constitutional right.” Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 (1982). … The question of whether a right is clearly established is a question of law for the Court to decide. Id. at 318.

United States v. Balt. Police Dep't

282 F. Supp. 3d 897 · District Court, D. Maryland · Oct 2, 2017

(ECF No. 2-2 at 158-61, as modified by ECF No. 39; id. at 159 ("The selection of the Monitor shall be pursuant to a process jointly established by the City, BPD and DOJ....").) … Shantay Guy, that is well-established and respected in the Baltimore community.

Allen v. Baltimore County

91 F. Supp. 3d 722 · District Court, D. Maryland · Mar 17, 2015

Since at least 2000, Allen has had a serious medical condition — sarcoidosis—that has affected his immune system. … See Jacobs, 780 F.3d at 581 (concluding that plaintiff had established genuine dispute as to whether she was qualified when “a reasonable jury could conclude that [plaintiffs negative] behaviors were manifestations of [her