Case law

Happy 40, Inc. v. Miller

63 Md. App. 24 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · May 9, 1985

We recognize that, “[w]hether a defamatory statement is entitled to a qualified privilege is a question of law for the court, but whether that qualified privilege has been abused is generally a question of fact for the jury … The conditional privilege that all parties agreed existed in this case was clearly for the purpose of permitting Booher *36 to explain to his remaining employees the reason for the appellee’s discharge.

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.

Talley v. Anne Arundel County, Maryland

District Court, D. Maryland · Sep 17, 2021

The Individual Defendants claim qualified immunity, arguing that Plaintiff fails to state a claim for a violation of his clearly established constitutional rights. … “Qualified immunity protects government officials from civil liability and suit ‘insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known

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.

Lancaster v. Baltimore County Maryland

District Court, D. Maryland · Sep 13, 2021

Qualified immunity “protect[s] government officials performing discretionary functions from civil damage suits ‘insofar as [the officials’] conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … As set forth above, qualified immunity “protect[s] government officials performing discretionary functions from civil damage suits ‘insofar as [the officials’] conduct does not violate clearly established statutory

Ammer v. United States

881 F. Supp. 1007 · District Court, D. Maryland · Sep 20, 1994

Moreover, the Supreme Court has construed the SAA statute of limitations as a jurisdictional prerequisite to the waiver of sovereign immunity. McMahon v. … Hansen, 450 U.S. 785, 790 , 101 S.Ct. 1468, 1471-72 , 67 L.Ed.2d 685 (1981) (holding administrative agent’s clearly erroneous legal representations fell “far short” of conduct which would justify estop-ping the government

Rounds v. Maryland-National Capital Park & Planning Commission

441 Md. 621 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jan 29, 2015

Apart from this limited waiver of immunity, the LGTCA does not waive any preexisting immunity against suit held by the local government or its employees. Hansen v. … In this case, Petitioners clearly failed to establish that the non-joined parties met the MIE exception. 25 Because Counts V–XI were dismissed without prejudice, a remand

Trotman v. State

466 Md. 237 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Oct 18, 2019

Third, the trial court must “determine [whether] the defendant has established purposeful discrimination.” Id. at 98 (footnote omitted). … The circuit court’s finding was not clearly erroneous.

Patterson

District Court, D. Maryland · Feb 3, 2026

To establish a violation of Title IJ, Patterson must show that “(1) [he] ha[s] a disability; ‘(2) [he is] otherwise qualified to receive the benefits of a public service, program, or activity; and (3) [he was] denied the … Pachtman, 424 US. 409, 427-28 (1976) (providing that qualifying a: prosecutor’s immunity would “prevent the vigorous and fearless performance of the prosecutor’s duty that is essential to the proper functioning of

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.

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).

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.

Dunham v. Elder

18 Md. App. 360 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jul 9, 1973

Herzmark was never qualified as an expert witness at the trial and his testimony was solely that of an examining physician. Dr. … Clearly, their testimony was insufficient to establish what was the standard of medical care and skill required of a general practitioner in Prince George’s County, or for that matter, in Maryland, in the year 1967.

Ecolono v. Division of Reimbursements of the Department of Health & Mental Hygiene

137 Md. App. 639 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Apr 2, 2001

The motion to dismiss was based on the ground that the Eleventh Amendment precluded the action, and with respect to the 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims, on the ground that the defendants enjoyed qualified immunity. … The court concluded that, because the law did not clearly proscribe the actions of the defendants, the defense of qualified immunity barred the claims. Id. In Fetterusso v.

Ledford v. Jenway Contracting

Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Nov 30, 2023

The Court found that the uncontradicted evidence established that the decedent’s death had occurred during the course of her employment. Id. at 457-58. … (establishing time limitations on civil actions); CJP § 5-401 et seq. (limiting actions against certain businesses, associations, and charities); CJP § 5-501 et seq.

Bricker v. State

80 Md. App. 532 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Nov 2, 1989

This determination is clearly a subject on which the fact finder can receive appreciable help from an expert. … The trial judge is given broad discretion in making this determination but may be reversed if founded on an error of law, an evidentiary error, or if the trial judge clearly abused his or her discretion. Stebbing v.

Chevy Chase Savings & Loan, Inc. v. State

306 Md. 384 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jun 5, 1986

That notice by its terms was only to be effective upon Chevy Chase’s qualifying for federal insurance. … This conclusion is clearly required, I think, in a mutual company, by the difference between the character of a matured claim and the character of a policy reserve.

Reed v. President of North East

226 Md. 229 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jul 13, 1961

The term begins when the Treasurer qualifies, and it expires when his successor qualifies. … The case before us clearly seems to come within the purview of the Tar Products Corp. case, supra, and not that of Scrivner .

Jones v. Horsey

4 Md. 306 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Dec 15, 1853

Winn and Ross, establishes clearly, that the rights of a foreign creditor, in opposition to the discharge of an insolvent and in preference to the claims of domestic creditors, may be lost by other means than taking a dividend … The authorities cited in support of this position do not, in our opinion, establish the principle contended for.

Pemberton v. Montgomery County

275 Md. 363 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jun 27, 1975

Pemberton asserts that the work which Exxon had accomplished by that date was merely preliminary and preparatory to actual construction of the service station and was thus not sufficient to qualify as the commencement of … That case, after taking note of the fact that the contractor had dug for a footing and then poured concrete into that excavation, nevertheless found the construction not to have been commenced so as to qualify, within the