Case law

Kennedy v. Widdowson

804 F. Supp. 737 · District Court, D. Maryland · Sep 3, 1992

Recently, the Fourth Circuit stated that, "the test of qualified immunity for police officers sued under [section] 1983 is whether in performing discretionary functions, they have engaged in conduct that violates 'clearly … The Court did not, however, foreclose the possibility that under certain circumstances a private defendant could be entitled to an affirmative defense based on qualified immunity. 5 .

Adams v. Peck

43 Md. App. 168 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jul 13, 1979

An absolute privilege is distinguished from a qualified privilege in that the former provides immunity regardless of the purpose or motive of the defendant, or thé reasonableness of his conduct, while the latter is conditioned … Peck was clearly of that nature, and is therefore protected by the “absolute” privilege set forth in Kennedy v. Cannon, supra.

Maryland Board of Physicians v. Geier

451 Md. 526 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jan 23, 2017

In Dawkins this Court made clear that, as “a general rule, interlocutory [ ] orders rejecting defenses of common law sovereign immunity, governmental immunity, public official immunity, statutory immunity, or any other type … of immunity are not appealable under the [ ] collateral order doctrine.”

Vathekan v. Prince George's County

935 F. Supp. 699 · District Court, D. Maryland · Aug 22, 1996

The case was so analyzed by the Magistrate Judge and the undersigned in ruling on motions for summary judgment under the notion of qualified good faith immunity. … Thus, in that there was no violation of any clearly established constitutional right by Simms, he is entitled to early summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds, Wagner v.

Highfield Water Co. v. Public Service Commission

488 F. Supp. 1176 · District Court, D. Maryland · May 20, 1980

Two recent Supreme Court cases have discussed the appropriate standard for evaluating an immunity defense: in varying scope, a qualified immunity is available to officers of the executive branch of government, the variation … A compensatory award will be appropriate only if the school board member has acted with such an impermissible motivation or such disregard of the student’s clearly established constitutional rights that his action cannot

Simon v. Union Hospital of Cecil County, Inc.

15 F. Supp. 2d 787 · District Court, D. Maryland · Jun 26, 1998

The Health Care Quality Improvement Act of 1986 (the “Act”), 42 U.S.C. § 11101 , et seq., establishes a national reporting system and provides immunity from damages for persons participating in professional review activities … Given that Defendants did plead the affirmative defense of immunity under Maryland law, which implicates the same issues as the qualified privilege defense — good faith and malice — Simon cannot argue that he is prejudiced

Santos v. Frederick Cnty. Bd. of Com'rs

346 F. Supp. 3d 785 · District Court, D. Maryland · Sep 27, 2018

The Circuit also held that qualified immunity barred claims against the Deputies and the Sheriff in their individual capacities. … These arguments are merely attempts to apply qualified immunity to municipal claims.

Schmidt v. Town of Cheverly

212 F. Supp. 3d 573 · District Court, D. Maryland · Aug 30, 2016

However, at least one federal court has found that it still does not qualify. See Brodzik v. … Even assuming that Plaintiff could establish a prima facie case of wrongful discharge, both of these claims are barred by governmental immunity.

Pope v. Barbre

172 Md. App. 391 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jan 25, 2007

The MTCA also clearly provides that a State employee acting within his or her scope of employment and without malice or gross negligence is immune from suit. … The legislature clearly could not have intended such a result.

Board of Education v. Marks-Sloan

202 Md. App. 59 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Oct 28, 2011

Danielczyk, 400 Md. 98 , 131 n. 11, 928 A.2d 795 (2007) (stating that “an action based on the tortious conduct of a State employee who qualifies as State personnel is against the State, not the employee”). … “It is well established that the Maryland Workers’ Compensation Act does not exclude tort actions between co-employees, but it does exclude an action in tort by an employee against his employer.” Hill v.

Dawkins v. Baltimore City Police Department

376 Md. 53 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jun 19, 2003

This would be flatly inconsistent with the long-established and sound public policy against piecemeal appeals.” Finally, the Bunting opinion noted that the “immunity from ... trial” language in State v. … We do not regard the denial of a motion for summary judgment asserting the qualified immunity of a deputy sheriff charged with maliciously committing common law torts as an ‘extraordinary situation.’

CIA. Atlantica Pacifica, S. A. v. Humble Oil & Refining Co.

274 F. Supp. 884 · District Court, D. Maryland · Aug 31, 1967

attempting to establish any one of those immunities, the ship has the burden of proof. … To avail itself of certain of the immunities provided in section 4. the ship would not only have to establish that the loss was occasioned by the cause to which the immunity relates but would additionally be required to establish

McDermott v. Hughley

317 Md. 12 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Aug 10, 1989

Kolodner, 233 Md. 512, 522 , 197 A.2d 245 (1964), we explained the difference: [a]n absolute privilege is distinguished from a qualified privilege in that the former provides immunity regardless of the purpose or motive of … We have recognized numerous instances where a qualified privilege is appropriate. For example, communications arising out of the employer-employee relationship clearly enjoy a qualified privilege.

Hudson v. Goodlander

494 F. Supp. 890 · District Court, D. Maryland · Jul 29, 1980

Is Plaintiff Entitled to Damages As prison officials, the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity on the damage claim. … However, “the immunity defense would be unavailing ... if the constitutional right allegedly infringed by them was clearly established at the time of their challenged conduct, if they knew or should have known of that right

Proctor v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.

289 F. Supp. 3d 676 · District Court, D. Maryland · Jan 25, 2018

Although the court's "inquiry is dependent on an analysis of state law," state law cannot resolve the issue by "simply labeling as a state official an official who clearly makes county policy." … basis of quasi-judicial immunity, sua sponte .

Carroll v. Town of University Park

12 F. Supp. 2d 475 · District Court, D. Maryland · Aug 11, 1997

The Defendants argue that Werge and Bacon are both protected by qualified immunity. … Plaintiffs Motion to Strike Section of Defendants’ Reply on Qualified Immunity Carroll filed a Motion to Strike a Section of Defendants’ Reply Memorandum which addressed qualified immunity.

Goodwich v. Sinai Hospital of Baltimore, Inc.

343 Md. 185 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Aug 6, 1996

As he sees it, a motion for summary judgment predicated on the immunity established by *200 the HCQIA should be reviewed in accordance with Maryland summary judgment procedure. Simply put, Dr. … Having made the requisite showing, Sinai claims that it qualifies for the presumptive immunity afforded by the HCQIA. Therefore, it disputes Dr.

Abrams v. City of Rockville

88 Md. App. 588 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Oct 2, 1991

Abrams’ action was therefore clearly time-barred. … Chriqui can qualify as a public official under any of those standards. The record shows that their positions were as “Leader Staff.” They neither ran the program nor were supervisors.

Harris v. State

82 Md. App. 450 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · May 1, 1990

It is clearly and unequivocally established that a conspiracy and a substantive crime conspired at are not “the same offense” within the contemplation of double jeopardy law. No merger is required or even permitted. … Its relevance, its competence, and its significance aside, it clearly was rebutting the defense testimony about misidentification.

Pope v. Williams

66 L.R.A. 398 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Dec 3, 1903

. *66 On 29th September, 1903, he applied for registration to the Board of Registration of the election district in Montgomery County in which he resided to be registered as a qualified voter, but the board refused to comply … The scope of the series of constitutional provisions of which the 14th Amendment is one, was clearly stated in the case of Strauder v. West Virginia, 100 U. S. 303—312.