Case law

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.

Donlon v. Montgomery Co. Public Schools

460 Md. 62 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jul 12, 2018

As this goes, county boards of education must be units of the State Executive branch because clearly they are not units of the Judicial or Legislative branches. … Entities “may qualify as a State agency for some purposes, while being classified as a local agency for other purposes.” Phillips, 413 Md. at 632, 994 A.2d at 427.

United States v. Mandel

415 F. Supp. 1025 · District Court, D. Maryland · May 4, 1976

Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232 , 94 S.Ct. 1683 , 40 L.Ed.2d 90 (1974) (qualified immunity for Governor and executive officers of State); Wood v. … The language in Eslinger does not clearly say otherwise.

Rock for Life-Umbc v. Hrabowski

643 F. Supp. 2d 729 · District Court, D. Maryland · Jul 8, 2009

“Qualified immunity shields government officials performing discretionary functions from personal-capacity liability for civil damages under § 1983, ‘insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … Accordingly, Defendants Schaefer and Williams are also entitled to qualified immunity. B.

Hejirika v. Maryland Division of Correction

264 F. Supp. 2d 341 · District Court, D. Maryland · May 22, 2003

See Md.Code Ann., State Gov’t § 12-104 (waiving state immunity for tort actions in state court); id. § 12-201 (waiving state immunity for contract actions in state court). … If plaintiffs amend their complaint to clearly assert a claim for a hostile work envi-roment under § 1983, the MTC/MDOC and the individuals in their official capacities would be entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity.

Williams v. State

231 Md. 83 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Mar 7, 1963

That the package contained heroin was later established by the testimony of a United States chemist. … Moreover, the testimony as to the marks on the arms was merely cumulative and corroborative of the charge of possession, which was clearly established by the testimony of the tenant, the officers and the appellant’s own admission

T-UP, Inc. v. Consumer Protection Division

145 Md. App. 27 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jun 26, 2002

The ALJ clearly exercised discretion in not accepting Dr. Pearce as an expert in the diagnosis and treatment of immune and autoimmune disorders, generally, or in the effect of aloe on the human body. … have been established, the immune system is extremely important, an intact immune system is extremely important in the body’s defense against the tumor itself and the possibility of the body getting rid of it." 7 .

Maryland Board of Physicians v. Geier

225 Md. App. 114 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Oct 1, 2015

Second, the issue is clearly important. … We express no opinion on the applicability of these immunities, or on the interrelationship between them and the qualified, statutory immunity under [¶] § 14-412, as none of those issues are properly before us at this time

PRINCE GEORGE'S COUNTY v. Brent

414 Md. 334 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · May 17, 2010

At a bifurcated trial, the hospital’s liability was established. … In that connection, this Court said: “We have held that the purpose of § 5-507(b)(l) ‘was to codify existing public official immunity, and not to extend the scope of qualified immunity beyond its Maryland common law boundaries

Raffety v. Prince George's County

423 F. Supp. 1045 · District Court, D. Maryland · Nov 1, 1976

“Common-law tradition, recognized in our prior decisions, and strong public-policy reasons also lead to a construction of § 1983 extending a qualified good-faith immunity to school board members from liability for damages … Appellees did assert 28 U.S.C. § 1331 as an alternative ground of jurisdiction, but I agree with the Court’s conclusion that existence of the requisite amount in controversy is not, on this record, clearly established.

Golden v. State Board of Law Examiners

452 F. Supp. 1082 · District Court, D. Maryland · Mar 30, 1978

The State clearly has a legitimate interest in this area and may adopt reasonable requirements to further that interest. … Privileges and Immunities The article IV privileges and immunities clause (U.S.Const. art.

Hanrahan v. Kelly

269 Md. 21 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · May 16, 1973

The Court distinguished the case very clearly from Pullman v. … Thus, in GambriU, we declined to view Boxsius as a weakening of the general rule declared in Pullman, but classed it instead as a clearly distinguishable exception rooted in the well-established rules of privilege.

Smith v. Upper Chesapeake Medical Ctr.

Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · May 4, 2026

By counting COVID-19 precautions as COVID-19 treatment, he argues, the court widened the scope of immunity beyond that established by the Amended Order. … The court analogized the proper scope of immunity here to the qualified immunity extended to police officers and state officials—a fair comparison in concept, although here, unlike the civil rights setting, at least we

Larsen v. Chinwuba

377 Md. 92 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Sep 10, 2003

The intermediate appellate court stated “that Chinwuba adequately alleged specific facts that raised a factual dispute about whether Larsen made tortious statements to the press ... during the confidentiality period ... established … While we have assumed, solely for purposes of this case, that the disclosures violated § 2-209(g) of the Insurance Article, they were clearly not “ ‘seriously criminal’ ” acts. Great A.P. v.

Farmer v. Kavanagh

494 F. Supp. 2d 345 · District Court, D. Maryland · Jul 19, 2007

“Clearly established” for purposes of qualified immunity analysis means that the “ ‘contours of the right must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates that right.’ … Farmer has established the deprivation of a constitutional right. This right, however, was not clearly established at the time of her transfer.

Holly v. Maryland Automobile Insurance Fund

29 Md. App. 498 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Dec 31, 1975

.” *503 The previously quoted language in Maddy, supra, clearly demonstrates that the statute meets this test and is valid. … The trial judge concluded from the evidence that “* * * the facts in this case are not sufficient to establish that there was, in fact, emancipation.”

Lathroum v. Potomac Electric Power Co.

309 Md. 445 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · May 7, 1987

Clearly, PEPCO’s alleged contractual relationship with the public fails to meet this definition. … Furthermore, we do not intimate that all of the other Honaker conditions needed to establish a “statutory employer” relationship were met here.

Williams v. Morgan State Univ.

484 Md. 534 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Aug 14, 2023

Gregory Hilton, Clerk  The doctrine of sovereign immunity is an “ancient” concept.1 It is the long- established view that a sovereign, such as a state, is “infallible,”2 and, thus, immune from suit “absent the State … By its plain terms, SG § 12-104(b) provides that the scope of the State’s waiver of sovereign immunity is established by the interplay between subsection (a) and CJP § 5-522(a).

2BD ASSOCIATES v. Queen Anne's County Com'rs

896 F. Supp. 528 · District Court, D. Maryland · Mar 30, 1995

Redistricting involves the establishment of the electoral structure by which the legislative body becomes duly constituted". Id. at 304-05. … , supra at 1278 ; Bruce, supra at 276-77 n. 2, although as pointed out by Judge Sprouse, Bruce, supra at 276 , cases so seeming to indicate may not have involved absolute, as opposed to exceptions for qualified, immunity.

Jackson v. Pena

28 F. Supp. 3d 423 · District Court, D. Maryland · Jun 19, 2014

immunity. … Moreover, he argues that the Officers are not entitled to qualified immunity because “they were clearly utilizing deadly force” and “Plaintiff had the right not to be shot.”