Case law

Rucker v. Harford County

316 Md. 275 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jun 6, 1989

In his remarks, Attorney General Sachs first dealt with public official immunity as follows (emphasis added): “[U]nder State law, it is only ‘public officials,’ not ‘public employes,’ who enjoy a qualified immunity as the … S.B. 585 would also abolish the arbitrary distinction between State ‘officials’ (who now have qualified immunity) and State ‘employees’ (who don’t).

Rovin v. State

488 Md. 144 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Aug 15, 2024

Under the State Constitution, governmental officials do not have qualified immunity when a violation is established. … legal rules that were clearly established at the time it was taken.”

Fox v. Wills

151 Md. App. 31 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · May 6, 2003

, that the complaint against them was for negligence, and therefore the court did not need to determine if they were entitled to absolute judicial immunity because, qualified immunity was sufficient to protect them). … We need not address whether the guardian ad litem in this case enjoys absolute judicial immunity because his qualified immunity is clear.

Maxwell v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority

98 Md. App. 502 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Dec 7, 1993

The garage shall be clearly marked as property of the County. Section 5.04. WMATA shall have a permanent right to approve all signs erected by the County.... Section 5.06. … The County will operate the garage facility within parameters established by the WMATA Board in compliance with the WMATA Compact requirements.

Knuemann v. Naranjo

378 F. Supp. 104 · District Court, D. Maryland · Jun 25, 1974

Justice Brennan with his approach of qualified privilege, would find themselves sympathetic to the application of the privilege on the Ruderer facts. … We would like to be on record as expressing our concern for a person who is clearly troubled.

Simpson v. Moore

323 Md. 215 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jul 23, 1991

If, he argues, § 12-106 is “interpreted” to include all of the provisions that were contained in § 5-306 of the Courts Article, he will be able to qualify under the “good cause” and “absence of prejudice” criteria established … The legislature clearly could not have intended such a result.

Willever v. United States

775 F. Supp. 2d 771 · District Court, D. Maryland · Mar 4, 2011

The Maryland Health Care Malpractice Claims Act (“HCMCA”) establishes a state administrative claims procedure relating to malpractice claims. … There was thus no conflict between the Oklahoma law, which established a rule for the tolling of that state’s statute of limitations, and Rule 3.

Provenza v. Rinaudo

586 F. Supp. 1113 · District Court, D. Maryland · Mar 6, 1984

Government officials performing discretionary functions are shielded from liability for civil damages if the conduct does not violate a clearly established constitutional right of which a reasonable person would have known … Their inadvertant procedural error, if made, was not a sufficient act to overcome this qualified immunity.

Carter v. Jess

179 F. Supp. 2d 534 · District Court, D. Maryland · Dec 18, 2001

Government officials, including police officers, are entitled to qualified immunity for discretionary acts performed in connection with their public service, as long as they do not violate “clearly established” rights of … Even if the belief was mistaken, as long as it was reasonable and not in violation of clearly established law, the officer is entitled to immunity.

Brooks v. State

3 Md. App. 485 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Apr 3, 1968

be qualified lo serve.” … any qualified to serve.

Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Financial Corp.

280 F. Supp. 3d 691 · District Court, D. Maryland · Nov 30, 2017

Thus, even if this litigation were objectively baseless — which it clearly is not — Capital One cannot establish that IV intended to interfere “with" the business relationships of a competitor.” … At trial, the court found that Ritter “was not qualified for tenure” (“tenure issue”) and that the only valid comparator she identified “was clearly more qualified” than she (“comparator issue”). Id. at 989-90 .

Livesay v. Baltimore County

384 Md. 1 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Nov 19, 2004

We have held that the purpose of § 5 — 507(b)(1) “was to codify existing public official immunity, and not to extend the scope of qualified immunity beyond its Maryland common law boundaries.” Lovelace v. … Once it is established that the individual is a public official and the tort was committed while performing a duty which involves the exercise of discretion, a qualified immunity attaches; namely, in the absence of malice

Conaway v. State

108 Md. App. 475 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Mar 1, 1996

The original version of the Act waived immunity in certain specified actions *488 to the extent and in the amount that the State was covered by a program of insurance established by the Treasurer. … If the Legislature had intended to waive immunity in all actions in which the State is liable, it could have done so clearly and unequivocally.

Mayor of Baltimore v. Hooper

312 Md. 378 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Apr 12, 1988

On 16 November 1984, the Examiner found that Miller had clearly established by a preponderance of the evidence both medical as well as his testimony that he is mentally incapacitated to perform the duties of his job classification … Hooper states that the circuit court, “in its opinion, recognized that sovereign immunity had been abrogated by the Legislature." He urges that this conclusion by the circuit court was not "clearly erroneous."

Ireton v. Chambers

229 Md. App. 149 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jul 28, 2016

More precisely, it is a case about whether a court can enter a judgment for nothing in damages against a defendant who has qualified immunity from “civil liability.” … We must decide whether the qualified immunity from “civil liability,” within the meaning of CJP § 5-507(a)(1), entails immunity from the entry of a civil judgment or just immunity from a judgment for damages.

McCoy v. Hatmaker

135 Md. App. 693 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Dec 26, 2000

If the official can establish these two factors, he receives qualified immunity, that is, immunity in the absence of malice. DiPino, 354 Md. at 48-49 , 729 A.2d 354 . … Id. at 19 , 729 A.2d 354 (“When the affirmative conditions for qualified immunity are satisfied, the only qualifier limiting such immunity is the presence of malice on the part of the officer.”).

Queen v. Prince George's County

188 F. Supp. 3d 535 · District Court, D. Maryland · May 26, 2016

As a result, he also could not establish that he was entitled to qualified immunity on the federal claim. See Streater, 565 Fed.Appx. at 210 . Consequently, summary judgment is not appropriate on' these claims. … To determine the availability of qualified immunity, I take the facts alleged “ ‘in the light most favorable to the party asserting the injury.’ ” Meyers v.

Rivero v. Montgomery County

259 F. Supp. 3d 334 · District Court, D. Maryland · May 3, 2017

Qualified Immunity The County Defendants argue that qualified immunity shields Officer Kettering from liability. Cty. Mem. 10-12. … As Smith notes, a finding that qualified immunity .does not shield an officer from liability also establishes that the officer has acted with reckless disregard for others’ rights. See id. at 55 , 103 S.Ct. 1625 .

Nero v. Baltimore County, MD

512 F. Supp. 2d 407 · District Court, D. Maryland · Sep 27, 2007

immunity. … matter of law that they are entitled to qualified immunity.

Dehn Motor Sales, LLC v. Schultz

212 Md. App. 374 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jun 26, 2013

immunity. … “Qualified immunity shields government officials from civil damages liability unless the official violated a statutory or constitutional right that was clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct.”