Case law

Dietrich v. Baltimore & Hall's Springs Railway Co.

58 Md. 347 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jul 11, 1882

They were offered by the plaintiff as evidence in chief; but as such they were clearly inadmissible. … The evidence produced to establish the negligence on the part of the defendant, establishes at the same time and as part of the plaintiff’s case, the want of reasonable care on hia own part in producing the injury complained

Roy v. Dackman

445 Md. 23 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Oct 16, 2015

Clearly, such matters are not topics of common knowledge of lay people, who would populate most likely the jury in this case. … [The social worker] is not qualified to do that, as she was not qualified as a psychiatrist, psychologist, or licensed clinical social worker. The testimony was improper and should have been stricken.

Waldt v. University of Maryland Medical System Corp.

181 Md. App. 217 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Sep 5, 2008

Under Maryland law ... he is not qualified as an expert to testify with regards to informed consent in reference to this procedure or this device. The foundation has not been properly laid. It has not been established. … Aldrich testified as well, but I don’t believe he was established as an expert in the field of informed consent.

Gladhill v. Washington County Board of Education

District Court, D. Maryland · Mar 22, 2024

conduct was clearly established at the time.’” … Courts employ a two-prong inquiry to determine whether a government official enjoys qualified immunity: “(1) whether the official violated a constitutional right; and if so (2) whether the right was ‘clearly established

Myers v. Town Of Colmar Manor

District Court, D. Maryland · May 4, 2020

So much for common law legislative immunity. Underlining the importance of local legislators’ unfettered discourse — and clearly "articulating the breadth of the privilege! … Furthermore, some States have deemed local officials to be protected only by qualified immunity. See, Lutz v.

Roy v. Dackman

219 Md. App. 452 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Oct 6, 2014

qualified in City Homes v. … Simon’s testimony is insufficient to establish medical causation.

Carter v. Aramark Sports & Entertainment Services, Inc.

153 Md. App. 210 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Nov 6, 2003

(cases involving employer-employee relationship, clearly an analog to the present case). … The Court of Appeals confined its holding in Bozman to the abrogation of the doctrine of interspousal immunity.

Western Maryland RR. v. System Board of Adjustment

465 F. Supp. 963 · District Court, D. Maryland · Jan 23, 1979

N & W cars than was established with respect to Cumberland. … Second, the defendant union’s “dispute” with the plaintiff carriers fails to qualify as a dispute within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act itself. See Consolidated Rail Corporation v.

Fusco v. Shannon

210 Md. App. 399 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Mar 20, 2013

Rule 5-702, supra, “the admissibility of expert testimony is within the sound discretion of the trial judge and will not be disturbed on appeal unless clearly erroneous.” … Appellants attempt to establish their assertions through Wantz v.

Wilson v. Gottlieb

821 F. Supp. 2d 778 · District Court, D. Maryland · Sep 23, 2011

The Malpractice Claims Act establishes the HCADRO as a unit of the executive branch of Maryland’s state government. C.J. § 3-2A-03(a). … Procedures in the HCADRO are substantially governed by the Maryland Rules, which establish the procedures for all judicial proceedings in Maryland.

Travers v. Bunn

District Court, D. Maryland · Mar 4, 2025

In any event, “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 … To overcome an official’s qualified immunity defense, a plaintiff must establish “(1) that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) that the right was ‘clearly established’ at the time of the challenged

Richburg v. Anne Arundel County, Maryland

District Court, D. Maryland · Jun 17, 2025

Second, those defendants contend they are entitled to qualified immunity. ECF No. 11-1 at 10–12. … Richburg did not directly respond to the arguments about qualified immunity.

Maryland Attorney General Opinion 98 OAG 114

Maryland Attorney General Reports · Nov 21, 2013

Among other things, the legislation established the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”). … For example, the Court of Appeals has concluded that the Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission (“WSSC”) is a State entity for purposes of sovereign immunity, Katz v.

Lawrence v. State

51 Md. App. 575 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · May 7, 1982

In the quest for an impartial and qualified jury, Negro and white, Protestant and Catholic, are alike subject to being challenged without cause. … Any other result, we think, would establish a rule wholly at odds with the peremptory challenge system as we know it. Hence the motion to strike the trial jury was properly denied in this case. Accord Johnson v.

Comptroller of the Treasury v. Fairchild Engine & Airplane Corp.

227 Md. 252 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Dec 20, 1961

The configurations and quantity of the hardware (missiles, ground equipment, etc.,) will be such that they are suitable for use in the flight program established by the Contractor. * * *. … It could hardly be contended that the nature and theory-of the tax is altered by the fact that the ultimate consumer is. immune.

Oates v. Sands

District Court, D. Maryland · Sep 22, 2022

Qualified Immunity Defendants Sands and Waugh further assert that the qualified immunity doctrine protects them from suit because they did not violate any clearly established … Qualified immunity is an affirmative defense that shields a police officer from civil liability in a Section 1983 action if “[his] conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which

Walker v. State

144 Md. App. 505 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · May 31, 2002

At trial, Gerald Myrick was compelled to testify after being assured immunity from state and federal prosecution. … the clearly separate area.”

Rome and Modo v. State

236 Md. 583 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Nov 19, 1964

At the trial of the defendants, the other participants (all of whom had been given immunity) were used by the State as witnesses against the defendants. … Clearly, the defendants were not in any way prejudiced by the action of the police.

Salaam v. Collins

830 F. Supp. 853 · District Court, D. Maryland · Jul 12, 1993

As to plaintiffs’ claims for monetary damages, they founder also in the face of defendants’ affirmative defense of qualified immunity. That is so, because, under Harlow v. … immunity.

Hare v. David S. Brown Enterprises

Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jul 28, 2025

Baltimore County, 487 Md. 282, 316 n.21 (2024) (stating that the petitioner “has waived any argument that the Defendants waived or failed to preserve their argument concerning qualified immunity”). … Hare can establish a prima facie case of discrimination.