Case law

White v. State

11 Md. App. 423 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Mar 15, 1971

Even after the motion for a directed verdict is made, the party whose opening statement is thereby attacked will be afforded full opportunity to qualify or amplify the statement in order to repair any inadequacy. … Under the circumstances of this case, we cannot say that the error was clearly harmless.

Lerner v. Northwest Biotherapeutics

273 F. Supp. 3d 573 · District Court, D. Maryland · Mar 31, 2017

Dendritic cell immunotherapies work by using human dendritic cells 3 to activate the body’s immune response against cancerous tumors. … skin, and boosts immune responses by showing antigens on its surface to other cells of the immune system.

Attorney Grievance Commission v. McLaughlin

372 Md. 467 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Dec 24, 2002

McLaughlin clearly violated the ethical duty required by Rule 1.4. … If the applicant was unable to qualify for Medicaid, McLaughlin provided various alternative remedies: G. Return of Fee if unable to qualify for Medicaid: 1.

Gordon v. Commissioners of Montgomery County

164 Md. 210 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Feb 15, 1933

The exercise of that power may be validly delegated by the Legislature to a municipal corporation or other qualified agency of local government. Rossberg v. State, 111 Md. 394 , 74 A. 581 ; Tighe v. … It is clearly within the powers and duties which the Constitution declares may be conferred upon county commissioners.

Thompson v. Opoku

District Court, D. Maryland · Feb 28, 2020

“Qualified immunity shields government officials who commit constitutional violations but who, in light of clearly established law, could reasonably believe that their actions were lawful.” Hunter v. … Indeed, the Fourth Circuit recently reiterated: “‘The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory

Diven v. Souders

District Court, D. Maryland · Sep 15, 2022

Diven; (4) the evidence establishes Defendants were not deliberately indifferent to Diven’s medical needs; and (5) Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. … Qualified Immunity Although Defendants generally assert qualified immunity, they provide only generic statements of the principles of qualified immunity and offer no substantive argument on this issue.

Gregg v. Mayor of Baltimore

56 Md. 256 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · May 26, 1881

This instruction was clearly right, and no objection has been made to it by the appellants. … That prayer was granted by the Court of Common Pleas, as qualified however by the third and fifth prayers of the appellees, which seem to have been intended to instruct the jury, 1st, that it was the duty of the appellants

Hicks v. Ferreyra

District Court, D. Maryland · Jan 28, 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. … Special Verdict 5-6, ECF No. 150.6 Officer Phillips has not carried his burden of establishing entitlement to qualified immunity under the circumstances of the second encounter.

Schiller v. Lefkowitz

242 Md. 461 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · May 11, 1966

The trial court gave the District a summary judgment on the ground of sovereign immunity, which *468 had been the Illinois law for a long period. … The intermediate court affirmed, but the Illinois Supreme Court overruled its prior decisions as to sovereign immunity and reversed.

Justice v. Commissioner of Social Security

District Court, D. Maryland · Jun 6, 2024

To establish entitlement to the extraordinary and drastic remedy of a temporary restraining order, Plaintiff must “clearly show” with “specific facts” that irreparable harm will result. See, e.g., Maxwell v. Hous. … But Plaintiff is unlikely to succeed on this claim because, absent a waiver of sovereign immunity, Defendants are immune from suit. See F.D.I.C. v.

Marion v. United States

214 F. Supp. 320 · District Court, D. Maryland · Feb 28, 1963

A part of that fiscal problem is the question of reimbursement of the *323 United States for the losses it suffers as a result of the waiver of its sovereign immunity. … Most of the same policy considerations present in Gilman are implicit in the regulation sought to be established here, although perhaps in a different degree.

Cunningham v. Lester

District Court, D. Maryland · Jan 22, 2020

Campbell-Ewald and Cunningham II also establish that federal contractors are not inevitably and unqualifiedly immune from TCPA liability. … Moreover, the text of the FMLA does not contain the well established system of immunities which § 1983 defendants can assert.” Id. See also, Buxton v.

Burno-Whalen v. The State of Maryland

District Court, D. Maryland · Jul 23, 2019

Accordingly, summary judgment based on qualified immunity is not appropriate. … In addition, Defendant Okafor asserts that he is entitled to qualified immunity.

Williams v. United States

District Court, D. Maryland · Mar 24, 2025

Myers seeking dismissal of the complaint for failure to exhaust administrative remedies and on qualified immunity grounds (ECF No. 32). … immunity.

Mylan Laboratories, Inc. v. Akzo, N.V.

770 F. Supp. 1053 · District Court, D. Maryland · Aug 15, 1991

to the state action immunity established in Parker v. … State action immunity was established in Parker in recognition of the "role of sovereign States in a federal system.” Omni, 111 S.Ct. at 1349 .

United States v. One Unbound Volume of a Portfolio of 113 Prints Entitled "Die Erotik Der Antike in Kleinkunst Und Keramik"

128 F. Supp. 280 · District Court, D. Maryland · Feb 15, 1955

general literature and the arts— that ‘where the presentation, when viewed objectively, is sincere, and the erotic matter is not introduced to promote lust and does not furnish the dominant note of the publication’, the same immunity … Such a book is clearly within the rule of the Ulysses and Parmelee cases, and even of the Besig case.

Doe v. Salisbury University

123 F. Supp. 3d 748 · District Court, D. Maryland · Aug 21, 2015

The Court finds that, as a threshold matter, SU Defendants did share a qualifying organizational relationship with shared goals. … To qualify as materially adverse, the challenged action must be more than mere “petty slights or minor annoyances.” Id.

University System of Maryland v. Mooney

407 Md. 390 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Feb 20, 2009

713 [1979], “when the Legislature enacts a comprehensive remedial scheme in which a claim is to be determined by an administrative agency and reviewed in an administrative appeal before judicial review is available, it establishes … Clearly, the language of “receiver, trustee, guardian, personal representative, fiduciary, or representative of any kind” does not include only the person awarded the procurement contract, but third parties representing the

Rettman v. State

15 Md. App. 666 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jul 5, 1972

It was clearly established, however, that when appellant entered the room he had a 1940 model Luger in his belt which he was requested to remove before negotiations concerning the drugs took place. … The defense does not so much establish innocence as grant immunity from prosecution for criminal acts concededly committed. Here Carbajal goes free because what was done to him was done by a Government agent.

Baltimore Scrap Corp. v. David J. Joseph Co.

81 F. Supp. 2d 602 · District Court, D. Maryland · Jan 6, 2000

Noerr-Pennington Immunity 1. Background The central premise of Noerr-Pennington 25 immunity is that those who petition government for redress are generally immune from antitrust liability. … Clearly, the standing and intervention issues were not merit-less questions of law to be summarily rejected. Thus, they were not “objectively baseless.”