Case law

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.

Stern v. Board of Regents

380 Md. 691 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Apr 12, 2004

The test that this Court has utilized in assessing whether the doctrine applies in a particular case is “(1) whether the entity asserting immunity qualifies for its protection; and, if so, (2) whether the legislature has … As the Board is clearly considered a State actor and may raise the defense of sovereign immunity, the next factor to consider is whether the General Assembly has either directly or implicitly waived the Board’s immunity in

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.

Paulone v. City of Frederick

718 F. Supp. 2d 626 · District Court, D. Maryland · Feb 17, 2010

To establish a violation of either statute, 20 Paulone must show that: (1) she is a qualified individual with a disability, (2) she was discriminated against, excluded from participation in, or denied the benefits of a public … Thus, Jenkins's liability will be analyzed under the MTCA framework, which confers qualified immunity on state officials. See Md.Code Ann., State Gov’t § 12-101 (a)(6) (West 2009); Barbre v.

Jackson v. Bostick

760 F. Supp. 524 · District Court, D. Maryland · Jan 29, 1991

immunity turns upon whether the constitutional right which he violated was “clearly established” at the time of the violation. … Three facts convincingly establish that the substantive due process right which I have articulated has not heretofore been a clearly established one.

Collis v. United States

498 F. Supp. 2d 764 · District Court, D. Maryland · Jul 19, 2007

The second motion was filed by Defendants Simms and Smith, and seeks dismissal because of absolute, or in the alternative, qualified immunity. See Paper No. 18. … Because the Court concludes that AUSA Simms is entitled to absolute immunity, and SA Smith is entitled to absolute immunity, or in the alternative, qualified immunity, the Court will, by separate order, grant the Defendants

Ajenifuja v. Owusu

District Court, D. Maryland · Mar 25, 2024

Qualified Immunity Defendants argue in the alternative that Mr. Owusu and Ms. … Grigsby are entitled to qualified immunity for damages as to Counts I and II. (ECF No. 16-2, at 13).

Claiborne v. Cahalen

636 F. Supp. 1271 · District Court, D. Maryland · May 28, 1986

Cahalen Under Maryland law, officer Cahalen is entitled to qualified immunity for discretionary acts performed in the course of his duty. Brewer v. Mele, 267 Md. 437 , 298 A.2d 156 (1972). … In order to overcome Cahalen’s qualified immunity, plaintiff must make an affirmative showing of actual malice on the part of Cahalen. Davis v. Muse, 51 Md.App. 93 , 441 A.2d 1089 (1982).

Newell v. Runnels

407 Md. 578 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Mar 13, 2009

According to the court, he enjoyed Federal qualified immunity from the Count I claim. … Plaintiffs here claim that O’Leary, supra, is clearly established law.

Ledford v. Jenway Contracting

Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jul 1, 2025

Immunity should not be presumed; it must be clearly and affirmatively granted. A. … The qualifier “under this title” marks the boundaries of the statute’s reach – boundaries the majority now discards. We are not free to erase limits established by the General Assembly.

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.

Statutes Severability – Lead Poisoning Prevention – "Qualified Offer" Provisions of Reduction of Lead Risk in Housing Act are Not Severable from the Immunity Provisions Invalidated in Jackson v. Dackman

Maryland Attorney General Reports · Dec 6, 2017

Att’y In our view, the qualified offer provisions are not severable from the immunity provisions. … Section 6-828—which Dackman invalidated— establishes the elevated blood lead levels at which the owner must be provided notice and the “opportunity to make a qualified offer under § 6-831.”

(2008)

93 Op. Att'y Gen. 168 · Maryland Attorney General Reports · Dec 23, 2008

The Divestiture Law sets forth a divestment process, qualifies that process by reference to federal law and the Board's fiduciary duties, and provides immunity for actions taken under the statute in good faith. 1 Divestment … See 93 Opinions of the Attorney General 68, 73, 78 (2008) (describing qualified immunity under the Maryland Tort Claims Act and public official immunity as to claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1983 ). 18 With respect to your particular

Maryland-National Capital Park 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.

Grossman v. McKay

384 F. Supp. 99 · District Court, D. Maryland · Nov 19, 1974

This clearly is not the intent of the doctrine. … As has been clearly demonstrated, her duties emanate from express congressional and administrative mandates.

Traore v. State

290 Md. 585 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jul 1, 1981

Traore enjoyed full immunity, he enjoys immunity from jurisdiction at this time only to the extent such act qualified as one arising in the course of performance of his official functions.” … The statutory language, rather than providing indicia of intended retrospectivity, clearly suggests an intent that the statute apply only to future acts.

James v. Prince George's County

288 Md. 315 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Oct 2, 1980

negligent acts of its agents since these individuals were "public officials” cloaked with a qualified personal immunity for their conduct. … 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

BOARD OF ED. OF BALTIMORE CTY. v. Zimmer-Rubert

409 Md. 200 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jun 11, 2009

Zimmer-Rubert] is an experienced educator qualified to teach English, Spanish, German, and French. In March of 2004, [she] filed an application to teach foreign language in [the Baltimore County] high schools. … The Eleventh Amendment confirmed, rather than established, sovereign immunity as a constitutional principle; it follows that the scope of the States’ immunity from suit is demarcated not by the text of the Amendment alone

Griffith v. Truette

866 F. Supp. 254 · District Court, D. Maryland · Oct 24, 1994

Moreover, at least as to plaintiffs federal constitutional claim, McKendrick is entitled to the defense of qualified immunity. See, e.g. Harlow v. … Rather, it is a civil action in which defendants are entitled to the defense of qualified immunity unless they violated one of the Griffith’s clearly established constitutional rights.

Battle v. State

Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Sep 3, 2021

In this case, the court was not clearly erroneous in concluding that the federal agent did not qualify for immunity from state charges of assault and related offenses. … That finding, which is dispositive of the claim of implied immunity, is not clearly erroneous.