Case law

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.

Reichardt v. Flynn

374 Md. 361 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · May 8, 2003

absolute and qualified immunity from defamation suits. … This is clearly not the type of activity that this Court should encourage and protect by a grant of absolute immunity.

Mixter v. Farmer

215 Md. App. 536 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Dec 19, 2013

Whether the trial court erred in granting appellees’ motions for summary judgment and holding that absolute judicial privilege and/or qualified privilege immunized appellees from the following claims: 1) defamation, libel … Carr concluded that “if there was immunity from liability for defamation, there was immunity from liability for the other alleged torts claimed by the [plaintiff] to have been committed.” Id. at 583 , 177 A.2d 841 .

Coit v. Nappi

248 Md. App. 44 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Oct 1, 2020

The court’s extensive and thorough Decision and Order clearly, and in detail, considered the relevant facts. … (2) A local government may not assert governmental or sovereign immunity to avoid the duty to defend or indemnify an employee established in this subsection.

Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission v. Phillips

413 Md. 606 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · May 10, 2010

such immunity for matters within the scope of its responsibilities by allowing WSSC to sue and be sued and to raise revenue to pay judgments. … Rather, an entity may qualify as a State agency for some purposes, while being classified as a local agency for other purposes. See, e.g., Rucker v.

Magnetti v. University of Maryland

402 Md. 548 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Dec 13, 2007

It is well established that the University is considered to be an arm of the State Government for the purposes of the sovereign immunity doctrine. … Because the University qualifies as a “unit” of the State for the purposes of sovereign immunity, we must discern the extent of the University’s statutory waiver of that immunity.

Houston v. Safeway Stores, Inc.

109 Md. App. 177 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Apr 1, 1996

In toto, that section, as codified, now reads: [Immunity]—Customer use of employee toilet facility in retail establishment. 1 ^ (a) Definition. … We note' that House Bill 162 was captioned: Retail Establishments—Toilet Facilities—Immunity from Civil Liability.

Charles E. Brohawn & Bros. v. Board of Trustees of Chesapeake College

269 Md. 164 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · May 29, 1973

The doctrine of sovereign immunity or, as it is often alternatively' referred to, governmental immunity, was before this Court in University of Maryland v. … (c) Same — Chairman; secretary and treasurer. — The board of trustees of each regional community college shall annually elect a chairman from among its membership and shall select some qualified person or persons as secretary

Spencer v. Hendersen-Webb, Inc.

81 F. Supp. 2d 582 · District Court, D. Maryland · Dec 16, 1999

FCRA provides qualified immunity from state law defamation claims to those who furnish information to a consumer reporting agency. … The Court will grant Defendants’ Motion as to the 1998 reporting of Spencer’s debt because they are entitled to the qualified immunity provided by FCRA.

Rovin v. State

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.”

Jackson v. United States

77 F. Supp. 2d 709 · District Court, D. Maryland · Dec 22, 1999

The United States does not dispute that the Customs officers qualify as "law enforcement officers” for the purposes of the FTCA. … Although the Court does not address the issue here, the Customs officers are entitled to assert qualified immunity on Jackson's FTCA claims. See Norton v. United States, 581 F.2d 390 (4th Cir.1978).

Williams v. Anderson

753 F. Supp. 1306 · District Court, D. Maryland · Dec 26, 1990

not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person should have known. … Moreover, at the time those alleged violations occurred, it was clearly established that “the relationship of love and duty in a recognized family unit is an interest in liberty entitled to constitutional protection.”

Lovelace v. Anderson

366 Md. 690 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Dec 3, 2001

“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 … as a private security guard for the hotel, Anderson was clearly not entitled to public official immunity.

Beka Industries, Inc. v. Worcester County Board of Education

419 Md. 194 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Apr 26, 2011

In order to determine if the doctrine of sovereign immunity applies to the County Board in the underlying contract suit, we ask: “(1) whether the entity asserting immunity qualifies for the protection; and if so, (2) whether … First, we must determine “whether the entity asserting immunity qualifies for its protection.” Stern, 380 Md. at 700 , 846 A.2d at 1001-02 (citation omitted).

Judicial Watch, Inc. v. Rossotti

217 F. Supp. 2d 618 · District Court, D. Maryland · Mar 27, 2002

Government officials performing discretionary functions are entitled to qualified immunity to the extent that “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … Qualified immunity is “an immunity from suit rather than a mere defense to liability.” Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 526 , 105 S.Ct. 2806 , 86 L.Ed.2d 411 (1985).

Blum v. Campbell

355 F. Supp. 1220 · District Court, D. Maryland · Jul 12, 1972

I have discussed the doctrine of governmental immunity at great length with my client who, understandably, finds it difficult to accept that most of the *1226 Defendants are in many respects immunized regardless of the wrongs … From the “deposition,” it quite clearly appears that this statement was made while the defendant Campbell was acting as Receiver pursuant to an Order of this Court.

Oken v. Nuth

30 F. Supp. 2d 877 · District Court, D. Maryland · Dec 18, 1998

The decision in Ashmus clearly buttressed Oken’s argument that the Eleventh Amendment immunity argument presented a “substantial question” for stay purposes and, moreover, given the split in circuits over the question, that … Since Maryland has adopted no rule of court or statute and since the State Office of Public Defender has established and follows no competency standards in these cases, 3 the State fails to qualify for the benefits of Chapter

Chinwuba v. Larsen

142 Md. App. 327 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jan 31, 2002

In other tort contexts, Larsen has only a qualified immunity. See CJ § 5-522(b). … This conditional privilege has the same “scope of duty” limitation as an absolute privilege or a qualified immunity.

Starr Indemnity & Liability Company v. United States

District Court, D. Maryland · Sep 11, 2019

Goetz, 886 F.2d 60, 64-65 (4th Cir, 1989) (holding that search warrant affidavits are judicial records to which the public has a common law qualified right of access). … interpreting a waiver of sovereign immunity, the court “must interpret any remaining ambiguity in the scope of CAFRA’s re-waiver of sovereign immunity in favor of the United States,” id.

Fersner v. PRINCE GEORGE'S COUNTY, MD

138 F. Supp. 2d 685 · District Court, D. Maryland · Apr 11, 2001

, they are entitled to the benefit of the qualified immunity defense long recognized under settled Supreme Court and Fourth Circuit precedent. … But this is exactly the point of the qualified immunity defense.