Case law

Etefia v. East Baltimore Community Corp.

2 F. Supp. 2d 751 · District Court, D. Maryland · Mar 25, 1998

The Fourth Circuit case law clearly requires less than actual notice to the president of corporate officer. … In establishing the four prongs, plaintiff also rebuts defendant’s legitimate, nondis-eriminatory reasons for not promoting him: that he didn’t possess the preferred skills and he wasn’t qualified.

Cottman v. Baltimore Police Department

District Court, D. Maryland · Jan 13, 2022

“Qualified immunity ‘shields officials from civil liability so long as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’” Adams v. … Qualified immunity is properly invoked where an officer’s conduct ‘does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” White v. Pauly, 137 S.

Freeman v. Beverly

District Court, D. Maryland · May 27, 2020

But clearly Title VII does not allow suit on this basis. See Jaffer v. Nat’l Caucus & Ctr. on Black Aged, Inc., 296 F. … Holmes argues that dismissal is warranted because the Complaint does not aver that she played any role in Freeman’s non-selection, and alternatively that she enjoys qualified immunity. ECF No. 25-1 at 4–5.

Woody

District Court, D. Maryland · Sep 11, 2026

Plaintiff's conclusory assertions fail to establish either. … Defendant additionally invokes a qualified immunity defense which will not be addressed here; Defendant may reassert his qualified immunity defense in his renewed motion, supported by appropriate authority.

Causey v. Balog

929 F. Supp. 900 · District Court, D. Maryland · Jun 17, 1996

To establish his prima facie case for failure to promote, Causey must show that: (1) he is a member of a protected group; (2) he sought the position in question; (3) he was qualified; and (4) he was rejected under circumstances … Causey must show “actual malice” in order to overcome this qualified privilege.

Duvall v. Hambleton & Co.

98 Md. 12 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jul 5, 1903

established, before they will lend their aid to enforce it.” … and does it in the language of .this Court, which has been quoted, “clearly and explicitly” establish such an agreement ?

G & M Oil Co. v. Glenfed Financial Corp.

782 F. Supp. 1078 · District Court, D. Maryland · Dec 21, 1989

The applicable standards for analyzing a motion for summary judgment under Rule 56 are well-established. … unable to clearly address these theories in the motion for summary judgment.

Jones v. Queen Anne's County, Maryland

District Court, D. Maryland · Mar 7, 2025

immunity. … Only if a constitutional claim has been alleged should we proceed to the determination of whether qualified immunity shields the defendant from liability.” Young v.

Maryland Casualty Co. v. United States

63 F. Supp. 629 · District Court, D. Maryland · Nov 23, 1945

It is true, of course, that the United States is immune from suit unless Congress has otherwise clearly provided. United States v. Shaw, 309 U.S. 495 , 60 S.Ct. 659 , 84 L.Ed. 888 ; United States v. … There is a further complication that confronts the plaintiff in this case, in that the payment it made was in consequence of a compromise of litigation; and there are no other facts appearing to qualify or further explain

Jno. McCall Coal Co. v. United States

248 F. Supp. 253 · District Court, D. Maryland · Dec 27, 1965

Plaintiff did not qualify as a “regular dealer” within the meaning of § 1(a) of the Act, 41 U.S.C.A. § 35 (a), *255 because it did not have any storage yards or other facilities in which it stocked and from which it sold … As to both interpretations which plaintiff’s contentions question, the interpretations followed by the Secretary of Labor, act* ing through the administrator, are reasonable, if not clearly correct.

Wood v. Toyota Motor Corp.

134 Md. App. 512 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Oct 5, 2000

As such, the plaintiff, to support her theories, must assert or establish that, one, a defect existed. … Leshner was not qualified to express the proffered opinion. B. The “Factual Basis” Issue Mr.

State v. Sheldon

332 Md. 45 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Aug 27, 1993

These cases clearly establish that the burning of a cross or other religious symbols is “speech” in the contemplation of the First Amendment. Indeed, the State concedes as much. … The legislative history of the cross burning statute, as well as the very definition of content-neutrality, clearly establish that the statute is content-based.

Caples v. Sinai Hospital of Baltimore, Inc.

Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · May 1, 2026

Vol.), section 5-609 of the Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article (“CJP”), provided them with immunity from suit. … Sinai clearly had knowledge as to where Caples was headed and, minimally, at least two people with whom he would interact.

Raney v. County Commissioners

170 Md. 183 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Feb 20, 1936

Since there is but one paper qualified to publish the notices, and as the notices are required by law to be published in a newspaper, the effect of the statute is to create a privilege, special in the sense that no one but … But when the democratic nature of that government, and the care and foresight exercised, in the formulation of that instrument, to safeguard the citizen in the enjoyment of privileges and immunities which were regarded as

NAT COAL. FOR STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES v. Scales

150 F. Supp. 2d 845 · District Court, D. Maryland · Jul 5, 2001

The Court believes that such deficiencies are sufficient to establish a violation of the NVRA. … Quinn, acting in her official capacity as Secretary of the State Board of Elections). [2] Defendants initially asserted the defense of qualified immunity to Plaintiff's § 1983 complaint.

Matter of Wooten

13 Md. App. 521 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Dec 2, 1971

It is, of course, well established that credibility of witnesses is a matter for the trier of fact. In this case, the record shows that the court believed the testimony of Mrs. … We think such testimony plainly established the requisite elements under Maryland Code, Article 26, Section 70-1 (g)(h) for a finding of delinquency; thus, we cannot say that *526 the court was clearly erroneous in its finding

Estep v. Mackey

52 Md. 592 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Nov 14, 1879

The intent, however, must clearly appear from the language used in the various parts of the will; and unless the intent is clearly and certainly different from that which the technical language he has used may import, we … The absence of such language to qualify that expression, so that we can limit it, without doubt as to what the testator meant, compels us to give these words in this will their technical signification.

Kemplen v. Maryland

295 F. Supp. 8 · District Court, D. Maryland · Jan 14, 1969

“May”, “if any” scarcely suggest that at least as of the date of the Whittington decision the Supreme Court itself was of the belief that Gault clearly established new procedures applicable to waiver of jurisdiction proceedings … Yet Justice Brandéis even more boldly characterized the immunity from unjustifiable intrusions upon privacy, which was denied retroactive enforcement in Linkletter, as ‘the most comprehensive of rights and the right most

Podberesky v. Kirwan

764 F. Supp. 364 · District Court, D. Maryland · May 15, 1991

The causation element is also clearly satisfied in this case. … However, assuming that § 1981 covers scholarship benefits (and assuming that § 1981 extends to states) [3] , Podberesky has failed to establish that defendants have waived their Eleventh Amendment immunity.

Ensminger v. Towson University

District Court, D. Maryland · Feb 5, 2024

On November 18, 2019, OIIE denied Plaintiff’s appeal for the purported reason that Plaintiff did not clearly label his appeal. Id. … “Once service has been contested, the plaintiff bears the burden of establishing the validity of service pursuant to Rule 4.” Id.