Case law

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.

Marzullo v. Kahl

366 Md. 158 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Oct 12, 2001

The facts of the case clearly demonstrate that the raising, breeding, and marketing of the Boas and Pythons do not require the use of the land in an agricultural sense. … The preceding definitions clearly do not include respondent’s business as an activity that occurs on a farm.

Sutton v. Crain

10 G. & J. 458 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Dec 15, 1839

On the contrary, we suppose it to be the establishment of a principle, which is to govern like cases when they are presented. … And wdiere it in the second place occurs, it is connected with the word hire- — “hire or use;” — the term use being there qualified by its connexion with the word “hire;” as if the testator had been apprised, that without

Simkus v. State

296 Md. 718 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Sep 8, 1983

Further, proper safeguards were imposed on the hypnotic session which was conducted by a qualified clinical psychologist.” Judge Fischer also referred to the guidelines laid down in State v. … Hurdel here was in accord with statements which it was clearly demonstrated she made prior to hypnosis.

Dodson

District Court, D. Maryland · Aug 26, 2026

The statutory immunity defense is inapplicable here. Lastly, Defendants raise a qualified immunity defense, claiming that Dodson has failed to show that defendant’s conduct violated the law. ECF No. 19-1 at 13-14. … Because the Court finds that the undisputed facts entitle Defendants to summary judgment, the qualified immunity defense need not be reached or addressed. B.

Ponds v. State

25 Md. App. 162 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Mar 13, 1975

A written stipulation of facts, clearly establishing the corpus delicti, was made. The case then proceeded on the issue of criminal agency. The State offered a confession by the accused to establish criminal agency. … The Court of Appeals pointed out at 354 [577]: “ * * * that specific person must rebut the allegations of coercion as no one else is qualified to do so.”

Tighe v. Osborne

149 Md. 349 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Dec 10, 1925

of the applicant ; that property immediately in the rear of the site of' the proposed stable is improved by frame dwelling houses,, being separated from the property of the applicant only by a three-foot alley; that the establishment … It cannot he pretended that the citizen has not the common law right to acquire title to a lot of land, qualified or absolute, in a city as elsewhere and to build upon, and improve it as his taste, his convenience or his

Phillips

District Court, D. Maryland · Jan 28, 2026

Defendants argue that Phillips fails to state a claim for First Amendment retaliation, and that the individual Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. (Mot. at 16 n.3). … To avoid this result, individual Defendants argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity “because it was not clearly established that [Phillips’] speech . . . was a matter of public concern.”

Mitchell v. State

51 Md. App. 347 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Apr 8, 1982

App. 644 , 335 A.2d 124 (1975), which is clearly distinguishable from the case at bar. In Dobson , the rebuttal testimony was initiated by the State on cross-examination and was both irrelevant and prejudicial. … Mitchell had refused to testify before the grand jury because of spousal immunity. Appellant then called Mrs. Mitchell’s attorney in surrebuttal.

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.

Lewis v. Caraballo

District Court, D. Maryland · Sep 29, 2022

Qualified immunity is an affirmative defense that shields government officials from liability for civil damages in a § 1983 suit as long as “their conduct does not violate clearly … Thus, the factual disputes preclude granting Trooper Caraballo qualified immunity at this stage.

In Re Sabin Oral Polio Vaccine Products Liability Litigation

763 F. Supp. 811 · District Court, D. Maryland · Apr 18, 1991

Moreover, OPV is preferable to IPV because persons who are immunized with IPV can still be linked in the chain of infection; although immunized themselves against the disease, they can serve as carriers of the wild polio … Like other live virus vaccines (such as those used for smallpox and yellow fever), OPV stimulates immunity by inducing a mild infection in vaccinees.

Hanrahan v. Alterman

41 Md. App. 71 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jan 10, 1979

voter of Montgomery County residing in the villages, to be and constitute the ‘Friendship Heights Village Council’ for the next succeeding two years, and until their successors duly qualify, each of whom shall qualify on … Clearly, also, the disqualifications contained in Section 3-4 (c) (conviction of crime) and Section 3-4 (d) (persons under guardianship) would be inherently applicable to all elections by “qualified” voters in this State,

Helsel v. Oves

District Court, D. Maryland · Jul 1, 2024

“Qualified immunity protects officers who commit constitutional violations but who, in light of clearly established law, could reasonably believe that their actions were lawful.” Henry | v. … See, e.g., Nelson, 2014 WL 6066053, at *7 (holding use of a VCT was objectively reasonable); Simpson, 2019 WL 1284101, at *6 (finding qualified immunity applied as it is not “clearly established” that use of VCT violates

Boyle v. Azzari

District Court, D. Maryland · Jan 10, 2023

Qualified immunity protects government officials performing duties within the scope of their employment from suit under § 1983 as long as their conduct does not “violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights … “At step two, the question is whether the right at issue was ‘clearly established’ at the time of the officer's conduct.” Id.

Coughlin v. Cuddy

128 Md. 76 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Feb 15, 1916

The hypothetical question propounded to> these witnesses covers seven pages of the record, and was clearly inadmissible. … The proof, we think, clearly brings this case within the rules and requirements established by the adjudged cases to constitute a valid deed or contract and the rulings of the Court below will be affirmed; Gesell v.

Miller v. County Commissioners of Carroll County & Grier

226 Md. 105 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jul 7, 1961

Grier was the man whom they selected as well qualified to give them such help. … That office is clearly authorized by Ch. 304 of the Acts of 1959, but there is a question as to whether the Commissioners have created it.

Dennis v. State

13 Md. App. 564 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Dec 7, 1971

No question is before us as to the satisfactory establishment by the State of the corpus delicti of the crime. … Her primary umbrage at the report of the staff conference appeared clearly to be “that my colleagues gave no consideration to my plea for leniency.”

Ademiluyi v. Albright

District Court, D. Maryland · Mar 18, 2025

Lastly, the doctrine of sovereign immunity applies to officials sued in their individual capacity and the doctrine of qualified immunity also protects government officials from liability when their “conduct does not violate … clearly established statutory or constitutional rights within the knowledge of a reasonable person.”

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.