Case law

Wells v. State

100 Md. App. 693 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jun 10, 1994

without malice or gross negligence, and (3) for which the State has waived immunity. … In an oft-quoted statement, the Roth Court made clear that “[t]o have a property interest in a benefit, a person clearly must have more than an abstract need or desire for it.

State v. Knowles

49 L.R.A. 695 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Feb 15, 1900

Would it not necessarily be construed “shall,” or “must,” in conformity with the established rule of law that where the duty to be performed, is for the benefit of the public or third persons, it shall be so construed ? … The origin and development of this elementary rule is clearly set forth in Sifford v. Morrison, 63 Md. 18 , and many of the cases are there cited in which it has been recognised and applied.

Ross v. Community Services, Inc.

396 F. Supp. 278 · District Court, D. Maryland · May 16, 1975

Yet, as noted hereinafter, it is clearly established on this record that the project owners are entitled to the rent increases in full. … Parts of the statute place mandatory duties on HUD, but other parts quite clearly require HUD to exercise its discretion. The statute requires HUD first to establish an initial operating expense level for each project.

Free v. Travelers Insurance

551 F. Supp. 554 · District Court, D. Maryland · Nov 26, 1982

(4) To what extent will the treatment damage my immune defense system and thus prevent my body from fighting the cancer cells? … Plaintiff’s Position Plaintiff introduced no credible evidence establishing the efficacy óf laetrile.

Maryland Ex Rel. Sachs v. Mid-Atlantic Toyota Distributors, Inc.

560 F. Supp. 760 · District Court, D. Maryland · Apr 4, 1983

Immunization of the pawn “just doing his job” does not imply immunization of the intentional orchestrator of a restraint. … Under the Court’s “qualified source rule,” such a theory of the case would clearly establish a vertical restriction.

The Falcon

19 F.2d 1009 · District Court, D. Maryland · Jun 6, 1927

Now it is well settled that the extraordinary immunity granted to the United States from the defense of limitations and laches shall not be lost, except by act of Congress clearly manifesting such purpose; and this prin- … Thus the immunity of the government against the defense of laches is preserved.

Talley v. Farrell

156 F. Supp. 2d 534 · District Court, D. Maryland · Aug 1, 2001

The defendants argue that this count should be dismissed because they are entitled to qualified immunity. … Talley has not pled facts sufficient to establish that they acted with malice.

Peninsula Regional Medical Center v. Adkins

448 Md. 197 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · May 26, 2016

PRMC criticizes the intermediate appellate court’s decision in this case for permitting Adkins to use reassignment as “a means to establish [that] she is a qualified individual with a disability” and relies on Gaither, … It acknowledged that an employee does not have to establish that he or she is a qualified individual with a disability to kick off the interactive process.

Davis v. Dipino

337 Md. 642 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Mar 13, 1995

Nevertheless, “judicial immunity is not a bar to prospective injunctive relief against a judicial officer acting in [his or] her judicial capacity.” Pulliam v. … The issues decided by those cases at the appellate level are clearly distinguishable from the instant case in which the Court of Special Appeals granted a motion to dismiss when the grant of a motion for summary judgment

Attorney Grievance Commission v. Shaw

363 Md. 1 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Feb 13, 2001

qualified.” … Such knowledge does not qualify as “personal” knowledge sufficient to require recusal.

Salsburg v. State

201 Md. 212 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Feb 5, 1953

is to-day more indifferent to its liberties than it was when the immunity was born. … The State can establish any system of laws it sees fit *223 for all or any part of its territory, provided that it does not encroach on the jurisdiction of the United States, and does not abridge the privileges and immunities

Simmons v. Comfort Suites Hotel

185 Md. App. 203 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Mar 31, 2009

If the words of a statute clearly and unambiguously delineate the legislative intent, ours is an ephemeral enterprise: we need investigate no further but simply apply the statute as it reads. … A home security system clearly does not constitute surgical treatment. And Ms. Simmons does not contend that it falls in the category of attendance, as enumerated in § 9-660(a)(l).

National Coalition for Students with Disabilities Education & Legal Defense Fund v. Scales

150 F. Supp. 2d 845 · District Court, D. Maryland · Jul 5, 2001

The Court believes that such deficiencies are sufficient to establish a violation of the NVRA. … Defendants initially asserted the defense of qualified immunity to Plaintiff's § 1983 complaint. In their reply, Defendants retracted this argument. (Defs. Reply at 2 n. 1) .

Nalls v. Baltimore County, Maryland

District Court, D. Maryland · Mar 15, 2024

Qualified immunity turns on the “objective reasonableness of an official’s conduct, as measured by reference to clearly established law.” Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 (1982). … qualified immunity will shield him from liability as long as his ‘conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’”)

Khatami v. Compton

844 F. Supp. 2d 654 · District Court, D. Maryland · Feb 13, 2012

Compton clarifies in the same section of her EEO affidavit that “NCI told [her] clearly that ... if [she] wanted to restrict [Dr. … “It is well established that the United States Government, as sovereign, is immune from suit unless it consents to be sued.” Gould v. U.S. Dep’t of Health & Human Servs., 905 F.2d 738 , 741 (4th Cir.1990).

Maryland Department of the Environment v. Days Cove Reclamation Co.

200 Md. App. 256 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Aug 30, 2011

during [the established permit review *278 process], that evidence should be ignored, even where it clearly supports the issuance of a permit.” … The case at bar is clearly distinguishable, however.

Conway v. Takoma Park Volunteer Fire Department, Inc.

666 F. Supp. 786 · District Court, D. Maryland · Jul 30, 1987

It cannot claim an immunity based on a condition which it itself sought to avoid.” 669 F.2d at 678 .) … The court will establish a date for a conference, at which time the parties will inform the court of the status of the case, and, if necessary, will establish an appropriate scheduling order, and trial date.

Canter v. Warden Ronald Weber

District Court, D. Maryland · May 12, 2022

Qualified Immunity “Qualified immunity balances two important interests—the need to hold public officials accountable when they exercise power irresponsibly and the … If the right was not clearly established, the qualified immunity doctrine shields a defendant officer from liability.

Bishop v. State

39 Md. App. 384 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · May 12, 1978

The nature of the record is such that Morton’s testimony, though it varied in some aspects from that of Hargest, clearly corroborated it. … The issue was properly before him and we do not find his decision to have been clearly erroneous. Md. Rule *393 1086.

(2007)

92 Op. Att'y Gen. 148 · Maryland Attorney General Reports · Nov 7, 2007

John K Ruff, Inc. , 278 Md. 580 , 586-88 , 366 A.2d 360 , 364 (1976) (sovereign immunity); see also Davis v. Montgomery County , 267 Md. 456 , 463-66 , 298 A.2d 178 , 183-84 (1972) (eminent domain), Charles E. … Moreover, the court noted that the procurement statutes specific to school boards were amended subsequent to the enactment of the General Procurement Law thereby "demonstrating clearly a legislative recognition that they