Case law

Adams v. State

202 Md. 455 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jun 10, 1953

In this case appellant had testified before the Senate Committee without any claim of immunity from self-incrimination. … The constitutional privilege against the giving of incriminating testimony must be asserted before an im *463 munity is established.

McRae v. Stewart

District Court, D. Maryland · Apr 2, 2020

While Plaintiff disputes whether these defendants are entitled to the absolute immunity they assert in defense of his lawsuit, that “dispute” is inconsequential. … Specifically, when a complaint filed by a prisoner is dismissed in its entirety it qualifies as a “strike” under the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). See Blakely v.

Caffrey v. Department of Liquor Control

370 Md. 272 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Aug 23, 2002

A record subject to this permissible denial also may qualify for exemption as a "confidential police record” in § 505. … Thus, in so far as a document qualifying as an attorney work product also qualifies for exemption under § 505, the custodian would be permitted to rely on § 505 in withholding that document. 21 .

Board of Trustees of State Universities & Colleges v. Fineran

75 Md. App. 289 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · May 13, 1988

claims against the individual defendants, they enjoy a qualified governmental immunity by reason of their discretionary duties that remains intact upon Fineran’s failure to establish that they (i) acted with malice or (ii … ) violated any of his “clearly established” rights.

Sherrard v. Hull

53 Md. App. 553 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Feb 2, 1983

This immunity, like that of judicial immunity, is based upon public policy. … What constitutes petitioning is not clearly defined.

Muthukumarana v. Montgomery County

370 Md. 447 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Aug 26, 2002

In its order and opinion, the Circuit Court held that Woodward was “a public official and therefore entitled to qualified immunity from tort liability.” … Whether the Circuit Court erred in ruling, as a matter of law, that PSA Woodward was a public official and thus entitled to qualified immunity. 2.

(2006)

91 Op. Att'y Gen. 201 · Maryland Attorney General Reports · Oct 17, 2006

In our opinion, a private attorney who provides pro bono legal services to an indigent client who has qualified for representation by the Public Defender enjoys the same immunity from liability under the MTCA as an Assistant … III Conclusion In our opinion, a private attorney who provides pro bono legal services to an indigent client who has qualified for representation by the Public Defender enjoys the same immunity from liability under the MTCA

State v. Rovin

472 Md. 317 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · May 26, 2021

clearly lacked jurisdiction over the matter at issue. … qualified immunity (such as public official immunity).

Barbre v. Pope

402 Md. 157 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Nov 13, 2007

Pope of his clearly established rights under the Maryland Declaration of Rights to be: (a) free from the use of excessive and unreasonable force; and (b) free from the depravation of life and liberty without due process of … For one thing, the fact that it is an alternative to gross negligence, which also will defeat the qualified immunity, indicates clearly that the Legislature conceived of malice as something beyond the merely reckless or wanton

Freilich v. Upper Chesapeake Health Systems, Inc.

423 Md. 690 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Dec 19, 2011

Part of Congress’ strategy was to provide qualified immunity for those who discipline ineffective physicians. 16 See 42 U.S.C. § 11111 (a)(1). … . § 11151 (9) and cannot qualify for immunity under HCQIA. 42 U.S.C. § 11111 (a)(1).

Bender v. Suburban Hospital, Inc.

134 Md. App. 7 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Sep 7, 2000

Bender failed to establish a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Suburban failed to meet the second prong of the test to qualify for HCQIA immunity. B Dr. … Bender failed to establish a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Suburban failed to meet the fourth prong of the test to qualify for HCQIA immunity. IV Finally, Dr.

Lanier-Finn v. Department of the Army

963 F. Supp. 2d 476 · District Court, D. Maryland · Aug 26, 2013

Adopting such an approach would clearly bar Plaintiffs claims in this case. However, the facts in Soble are distinguishable. … Plaintiffs claims clearly would be barred under the Green approach.

Waybright Ex Rel. Waybright v. Frederick County Maryland Department of Fire & Rescue Services

475 F. Supp. 2d 542 · District Court, D. Maryland · Mar 1, 2007

Qualified Immunity. Coombe asserts the defense of qualified immunity with respect to Plaintiffs’ federal constitutional claims. … Assuming arguendo that Officer Coombe’s actions violated Waybright’s substantive due process rights, this Court would consider the second step of the qualified immunity analysis, i.e., were those rights "clearly established

Caldor, Inc. v. Bowden

330 Md. 632 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jun 9, 1993

The defendant claimed he was entitled to absolute immunity as a witness called to testify before the Commission. … immunity.’ ” Id. at 171 , 498 A.2d at 272 (quoting W.P.

Hooper v. Sachs

618 F. Supp. 963 · District Court, D. Maryland · Sep 16, 1985

The second, qualified immunity, is applicable “insofar as [the challenged] conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. … The right to be free of illegal searches and seizures by private citizens acting as agents of the state is a clearly established one. The issue of absolute immunity is not so easily resolved.

Gross v. Pomerleau

465 F. Supp. 1167 · District Court, D. Maryland · Feb 22, 1979

A remaining issue, then, is whether the expansion of liability under Monell is in any way qualified by the presence of municipal immunity. … motivation or with such disregard of the student’s clearly established constitutional rights that his action cannot reasonably be characterized as being in good faith. 420 U.S. at 322 , 95 S.Ct. at 1001.

Chin v. City of Baltimore

241 F. Supp. 2d 546 · District Court, D. Maryland · Jan 22, 2003

Further, Officer Wilhelm's arguments that he is entitled to qualified immunity must be rejected at this stage. … Taking the facts in the complaint as true, Officer Wilhelm could not have reasonably believed that his actions did not violate the plaintiffs' clearly established rights.

Md.-Nat'l Cap. P. & P. Comm'n v. Crawford

307 Md. 1 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jul 16, 1986

The court further found that the Commission's affirmative action plan contained an exception suspending the "one for one" hiring rule when one among several "qualified" applicants for a position was "clearly" more qualified … Crawford as first choice and as clearly more qualified, and she recommended the second choice minority candidate.

Utica Mutual Insurance v. Gaithersburg-Washington Grove Fire Department, Inc.

53 Md. App. 589 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Feb 2, 1983

The trial court erred in ruling that the appellee had established the defense of governmental immunity; 2. … If these two conditions are found to exist, a qualified immunity attaches. This immunity frees the individual from liability in the absence of malice. Id.

Berg v. Merricks

20 Md. App. 666 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Apr 18, 1974

No instructional standard was established. The judge was clearly correct in refusing to permit the jury to speculate on the “might have been theories propounded by appellants.” “ ... … The statute clearly deprives the superintendent of the limited protection of governmental immunity enjoyed by public officers. In addition, Lyman v.