Case law

Neal-Williams v. Addison

District Court, D. Maryland · Sep 12, 2023

“Qualified immunity protects government officials from civil damages in a § 1983 action insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would … To overcome a claim of qualified immunity from a § 1983 claim, there must be a showing that (1) the government official violated a federally protected right of the plaintiff; and (2) that right was clearly established

D'ANNA v. Secretary of Personnel

47 Md. App. 180 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Nov 12, 1980

It merely gives the Secretary the authority to promote qualified individuals from within the organizational units in preference to those on an eligible list. … This section is clearly meant to apply when promotion is not involved and no qualified candidates have been found through the competitive system.

Jefferson v. United States

74 F. Supp. 209 · District Court, D. Maryland · Oct 23, 1947

o hold that it was not the intention of Congress to impose liability for personal damage to members of the ship’s company arising on the ship but not caused by the ship itself as a juridical entity, in view of the long established … It therefore clearly covers claims against the government by virtue of negligent acts of military personnel, damaging private citizens and even civilian federal employees who have not accepted benefits under the Federal Employees

Jackson v. Gelsinger

District Court, D. Maryland · Aug 6, 2019

Qualified Immunity Even if the Court found Defendants violated Plaintiff s constitutional rights, they would nevertheless be entitled to summary judgment based on qualified immunity. … right; and (2) the unlawfulness of the conduct was “clearly established” at the time of the incident in question.

(1996)

81 Op. Att'y Gen. 169 · Maryland Attorney General Reports · Dec 6, 1996

public utilities in whose races the horses of every licensed owner and trainer may participate": On the contrary, the statutes and regulations, viewed in the aggregate, convince us that a licensed racetrack, except otherwise clearly … It is also well-established that the "[m]ere approval of, or acquiescence in, the initiatives of a private party is not sufficient to justify holding the state responsible for those initiatives under the terms of the 14th

Pennsylvania Threshermen & Farmers' Mutual Casualty Insurance v. Messenger

181 Md. 295 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jan 12, 1943

It is now argued that the insured’s damages for breach of contract cannot exceed 8537, as that value was established by the sheriff’s sale. … must possess before he is entitled to express an opinion is a preliminary question which is left largely to the discretion of the trial court, and the ruling thereon will not be disturbed by the Court of Appeals unless clearly

Patterson

District Court, D. Maryland · Apr 16, 2026

Rather, the Court granted the Defendants’ motion to dismiss based on Eleventh Amendment immunity, failure to state a claim, and prosecutorial immunity. ECF 60, at 6-18. … To establish a violation of Title II, 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

Hawks v. Gottschall

241 Md. 147 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jan 10, 1966

not “qualified persons” within the meaning of Code (1957), Article 66)4, Section 150 (g). … His testimony is unequivocal that as of the time of the hearing his intention to stay in Maryland was clearly formed.

Conway v. State

15 Md. App. 198 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Apr 21, 1972

The questions posed to Johnson by the State were directed primarily to the grant of immunity. … We believe that the evidence presented by the State was not only sufficient to send the matter to the jury for its consideration, but that it was overwhelmingly and clearly established that the wilful, wanton and malicious

Doe v. Johns Hopkins Health System Corp.

274 F. Supp. 3d 355 · District Court, D. Maryland · Apr 6, 2017

Defamation Under Maryland law, to establish a prima facie case of defamation, a plaintiff must establish that (1) the defendant made a defamatory statement to- a .third person (a requirement known as publication); (2) the … A court may consider defenses on a motion to dismiss only when “the face of the complaint clearly reveals the existence of a meritorious- affirmative defense.” Id.

Marrs v. Marriott Corp.

830 F. Supp. 274 · District Court, D. Maryland · Dec 21, 1992

In order to establish a prima facia case for a Title VII employment discrimination claim, the plaintiff must show that (1) he is a member of a protected class; (2) he was qualified for the job and satisfied his employer’s … Communications Satellite Corp., 759 F.2d 355 (4th Cir.1985) (“Unsupported allegations as to motive do not confer talismanic immunity from Rule 56.”); Mein v.

Phair v. Montgomery County Public Schools

3 F. Supp. 2d 644 · District Court, D. Maryland · Sep 25, 1997

Unfortunately, Plaintiff cannot carry her burden of establishing that she was qualified for the position. … Defendant clearly has carried its burden of establishing the legitimacy of its selection process and Plaintiff has mounted no showing of pretext. TV.

G. E. M., Inc. v. Plough, Inc.

228 Md. 484 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · May 2, 1962

Section 91 (d) provides a penalty of $200 for failure to qualify or register as required under section 90. … Whether a foreign corporation may maintain a suit without qualifying or registering clearly depends upon whether it is “doing business” as defined in the cases on the subject.

Carter v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore

164 F. Supp. 2d 509 · District Court, D. Maryland · Sep 13, 2001

As the Supreme Court has held, a state’s waiver of sovereign immunity in its own courts does not constitute a waiver of immunity from suit in federal court under the Eleventh Amendment. Kennecott Copper Corporation v. … Probable cause clearly existed at the time for the arrest of plaintiff.

Roe v. Doe

193 Md. App. 558 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jul 7, 2010

The distinction is also applied to the time limit for asserting claims under a statute waiving sovereign immunity. See Higginbotham v. … The Court held that the new rule, being clearly remedial, had a retrospective sweep. 362 Md. at 554 , 766 A.2d at 108-09 .

Hinebaugh v. Garrett County Memorial Hospital

207 Md. App. 1 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Aug 31, 2012

CJP section 3-2A-02(c) is entitled “Establishing liability of health care provider; qualifications of persons testifying.” … (Clearly, he is not board certified in the “same specialty” as any of them.)

In Re Adoption/Guardianship of Tatianna B.

417 Md. 259 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Dec 3, 2010

Wyeth, we noted that, under Rule 5-702, “the admissibility of expert testimony is within the sound discretion of the trial judge and will not be disturbed on appeal unless clearly erroneous.” 408 Md. 575, 618 , 971 A.2d 235 … In the present case, the record before Judge Callahan established that the judge did not abuse her discretion in qualifying Ms. McFarlane as an expert in social work, because of Ms.

Bancroft Information Group, Inc. v. Comptroller of Treasury

91 Md. App. 100 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Apr 6, 1992

They argue that the regulation allows the Comptroller too much discretion to decide what qualifies as a newspaper and is thus exempt from the sales tax. … any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities

Hasenei v. United States

541 F. Supp. 999 · District Court, D. Maryland · Apr 8, 1982

It is also to be noted that Pennsylvania affords a qualified immunity to, inter alia, psychiatrists. … Accordingly, defendant has a qualified immunity from liability unless defendant’s actions were grossly negligent or incompetent.

Hicks v. Anne Arundel County

District Court, D. Maryland · Dec 22, 2020

Pamer invokes a defense of qualified immunity (see ECF No. 29 at 8), which is designed to protect public officials from becoming embroiled in lawsuits when “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … Thus, the doctrine of qualified immunity cannot shield Cpl. Pamer from Hicks’s adequately pleaded Fourth Amendment claim. c.