Case law

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.

Maryland Environmental Trust v. Gaynor

140 Md. App. 433 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Sep 10, 2001

This case involves the events surrounding the establishment of an environmental easement over the property of appellees, Cathy Cook Gaynor and her husband, Kevin Gaynor. … This conclusion was clearly supported by the facts presented.

Bacheller v. State

3 Md. App. 626 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Apr 15, 1968

Therefore, any challenge levied at the constitutionality of a duly enacted statute must clearly establish that said statute plainly contravenes the Federal or State Constitutions, otherwise the presumption remains unrebutted … The record before us clearly establishes that the trial court excluded all papers reflecting the guilty finding below, and replaced them with papers designating them as “Appeals.”

State v. City of Baltimore

199 Md. 289 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Oct 1, 1993

Rosoff had complied with all relevant provisions of the workmen’s Compensation Act and claimed immunity from suit. … Wallace, 4 Cir., 172 F. 2d 802 , relied on by the appellant, is clearly distinguishable on the facts, for Sears was not in the building trade at all.

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

View Point Medical Systems, LLC v. Athena Health, Inc.

9 F. Supp. 3d 588 · District Court, D. Maryland · Mar 28, 2014

In sum, the text of the Agreements establishes the process by which a contact becomes a Qualified Lead. … Although the Agreements do not clearly establish as much, plaintiff's argument in its Opposition is based on that premise. Opp. at 7-8 & n. 4.

Demesme v. Montgomery County Government

63 F. Supp. 2d 678 · District Court, D. Maryland · Aug 12, 1999

The record clearly demonstrates that the plaintiff was disciplined following the initial two incidents before finally being terminated following the third. … Because the Court finds that plaintiff has not established a prima facie case of discrimination, it need not resolve whether defendants Biggins and Norton would enjoy qualified immunity for the alleged constitutional violations

Davis v. State

56 Md. App. 694 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Dec 16, 1983

In Edwards , the giving of the inadmissible first statement was clearly established, as were the contents of that first statement. … In such a situation we do not interpret the statute so as to immunize third offenders from its effects. Cf. Leuschner v. State, 45 Md.App. 323, 354-355 [ 413 A.2d 227 ] (1980).

University of Baltimore v. Iz

123 Md. App. 135 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Sep 3, 1998

Does sovereign immunity bar a claim for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing? … To the contrary, the evidence established that he acted in good faith.

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.

Cooper v. Rogers

788 F. Supp. 255 · District Court, D. Maryland · Oct 30, 1991

Moreover, the record establishes beyond doubt that defendants have already gone to considerable lengths to provide Cooper with a kosher diet. … While these measures, of course, could not retroactively insulate defendants from liability for damages arising from pre-existing unconstitutional conduct, defendants are clearly entitled to qualified immunity against any

Rice v. Prime Care Medical Inc.

District Court, D. Maryland · Sep 27, 2024

“Qualified immunity bars § 1983 actions against government officials in their individual capacities ‘unless (1) they violated a federal statutory or constitutional right, and (2) the unlawfulness of their conduct was clearly … Plaintiff alleges that individual Custody Defendants violated that clearly established right.

Sylvia Development Corp. v. Calvert County

842 F. Supp. 183 · District Court, D. Maryland · Jan 13, 1994

Nor have Plaintiffs provided any extrinsic evidence from which a reasonable trier of fact could conclude that Defendants clearly and intentionally discriminated against Plaintiffs on the grounds alleged. … The state court’s decision, Plaintiffs say, establishes ineontrovertibly that Defendants’ action vis-a-vis their application was arbitrary and capricious.

Casper v. Chas. F. Smith & Son, Inc.

71 Md. App. 445 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jun 5, 1987

The City also argued that it was immune from liability by virtue of municipal immunity. The court adopted the reasoning of the defendants and granted the respective motions. … a proprietary function and thus the doctrine of municipal immunity bars appellants’ recovery.

State v. Baltimore & Ohio Railroad

127 Md. 434 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jan 13, 1916

Co. acquired its rights and immunities of taxation from the Acts of 1854, Chapter 250, or after the adoption of the Constitution of 1851, and therefore, these immunities then granted were a subject-matter over which the Legislature … The Act of 1878 granted no additional immunity to the Eailroad Company above that contained in its original charter.

State v. Funkhouser

140 Md. App. 696 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Sep 27, 2001

If *710 that were true, it would clearly have justified some additional delay in processing the traffic stop. … We are not convinced that a person, by mere presence in a suspected car, loses immunities from search of his person to which he would otherwise be entitled. 332 U.S. at 587 , 68 S.Ct. 222 .

State v. Good Samaritan Hospital of Maryland, Inc.

299 Md. 310 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Apr 11, 1984

Therefore, one attacking the statute’s validity has the burden of affirmatively and clearly establishing its invalidity. Salisbury Beauty Schools v. St. Bd., 268 Md. 32 , 300 A.2d 367 (1973). … It clearly is not a special law; it does not meet the first condition of § 33 of Article III of the Maryland Constitution. All hospitals offering foot care and all podiatrists are treated alike.

O'BANNON v. Friedman's, Inc.

437 F. Supp. 2d 490 · District Court, D. Maryland · Jun 28, 2006

This would be especially nonsensical in the case at bar, where Friedman’s is immune from liability damages and Federal and St. Paul are Plaintiffs’ only means for recovering on a successful claim. … The court made no attempt at qualifying their holding with an explanation as to the peculiarity of cases involving uninsured and underinsured motorist insurance. 2 .

Bd. of Education Of Harford Cnty. v. Doe

Court of Appeals of Maryland · Feb 3, 2025

The General Assembly then changed that limitations period to the later of 20 years after the victim reaches the age of majority or three years after the date the defendant is convicted of a qualifying crime. … Majority Opinion at 34-38. 4 Then, despite the fact that the Anderson case had clearly stated that “a statute of repose provide[s] an absolute bar to an action or … a grant of immunity to a class of potential defendants

Peters and Demby v. State

187 Md. 7 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jul 23, 1946

The State clearly met that burden in the instant case by the testimony of all the officials present when the testimony was taken. … We rejected the contention made on the rule and reaffirmed the doctrine established in the League case, supra.