Case law

State of Md. Comptroller v. Badlia Bros.

Court of Appeals of Maryland · Mar 28, 2025

The court consolidated the cases, ruled that the State enjoyed qualified immunity, and dismissed the cases. The Circuit Court for Baltimore City reversed. … In assessing whether sovereign immunity applies, the Court looks at: “(1) whether the entity asserting immunity qualifies for the protection; and, if so, (2) whether the legislature has waived immunity either directly

In re: B.Cd. & B.Cb.

Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Aug 28, 2025

As a part of a study, the court may order that the child or any parent or guardian be examined by a physician, psychiatrist, psychologist, or other professionally qualified person. … SB 3 changes existing law and establishes some new procedures with which we disagree.

Kee v. State Highway Administration

68 Md. App. 473 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Nov 10, 1986

in situations where the legislature had clearly intended to waive it. … As we explained earlier, the legislature clearly manifested its intent to waive immunity in this type of action if fiscally possible.

Bosse v. Baltimore County

692 F. Supp. 2d 574 · District Court, D. Maryland · Mar 10, 2010

does not make clear that their actions violated Plaintiffs clearly-established First Amendment rights. … speech is ‘clearly established,’ ” id. at 44.

Brown v. Ashton

93 Md. App. 25 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Nov 17, 1992

First, the circuit court held that “there is a clear qualified immunity to the police officers, the City and the Chief on the common law counts.” … Nor can the claims of false imprisonment or invasion of privacy, given the probable cause that existed, overcome the appellees’ qualified immunity. Simons v.

Arey v. Robinson

819 F. Supp. 478 · District Court, D. Maryland · Jul 8, 1992

“If there exists a ‘legitimate question’ as to whether particular conduct violates a particular right then the right is *489 not clearly established and qualified immunity applies.” Id. … I would find that the defendants are entitled to the defense of qualified immunity in this case. The plaintiff claims that his right to privacy is clearly established by the Hudson case. (Plaintiffs Post-Evid. Mem.).

E. Eyring & Sons Co. v. Mayor of Baltimore

253 Md. 380 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · May 2, 1969

Clearly, the acts of the City carried out by the Bureau of Building Inspection in the issuance of permits, supervision, and inspection of construction are sanctioned by legislative authority. … Under these circumstances, we are unable to find that the City failed to meet its burden of establishing its defense of governmental immunity. See Madison v. Reichelt, 158 F. Supp. 401 (D.

Royster v. Gahler

154 F. Supp. 3d 206 · District Court, D. Maryland · Dec 31, 2015

Moreover, plaintiffs notice to the EEOC is clearly not sufficient to constitute substantial compliance, as the EEOC is not associated with the State in any way. … abrogation of sovereign immunity.

Blackwell v. Wyeth

408 Md. 575 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · May 7, 2009

Deth was “clearly qualified to testify as an expert witness in the areas of physiology and neurophar *626 macology.” Judge Berger, however, excluded Dr. … In the present case, clearly the level of complexity regarding the establishment of a causal relationship between the administration of a vaccine containing thimerosal and the onset of autism is complex; to the extent that

Biggs v. Board of Education of Cecil County

229 F. Supp. 2d 437 · District Court, D. Maryland · Mar 6, 2002

Under the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals’ decision in Cash , Defendant Board *444 of Education may establish that it is a state agency entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity in one of two ways: (i) if the judgment against … The county boards must obtain the state’s approval regarding the establishment of schools, acquisition or disposition of property, construction or renovation of buildings, and curriculum.

Board of Education v. Beka Industries, Inc.

190 Md. App. 668 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Feb 26, 2010

State Agency We start initially with the first factor, “whether the entity asserting immunity qualifies for its protection.” Stem, 380 Md. at 700 , 846 A.2d 996 . … Thus, the first factor in the test for assessing whether the doctrine of sovereign immunity applies, whether the entity asserting immunity qualifies for protection, is answered in the affirmative. B.

Prince George's County v. Longtin

419 Md. 450 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Apr 25, 2011

According to the Defendants, Longtin failed to qualify under the “exclusive” list of factors established in Heron, Wilbon and White . … The Defendants also argue that a pattern or practice claim would “deprive the courts of its role to determine the legal question of the threshold issues [of qualified immunity.]”

Floyd v. Balt. City Council

241 Md. App. 199 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jun 4, 2019

Even if she was qualified to “support and possibly to implement the policy of the [Council] and [Committee] regarding the [Act],” she was not qualified “to make or explain that policy.” … remedies following establishment of the merits of its foundational claim seems to us to run counter to the intent of the Act[.]

American Civil Liberties Union Foundation v. Leopold

223 Md. App. 97 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · May 28, 2015

(b) (1) Personal records may not be created unless the need for the information has been clearly established by the unit collecting the records. … Without first having “clearly established” a need for the documents, Mr. Leopold should not have been “using” them at all, whether he wore his County Executive Hat or his Candidate Hat at the time.

Benford v. American Broadcasting Co., Inc.

649 F. Supp. 9 · District Court, D. Maryland · May 14, 1986

Quite clearly, the defendants’ intentions are in dispute, precluding summary judgment. See Phoenix Savings & Loan v. … The Congressional defendants have recently appealed the Court's April 21, 1986 ruling on the issue of qualified immunity and have not responded to the motion. 3 . 18 U.S.C. § 2511 et seq. 4 . S.Rep.

Farmer v. Ramsay

41 F. Supp. 2d 587 · District Court, D. Maryland · Mar 10, 1999

Farmer has clearly met the two requirements to state a claim under Title VI. … established law” (compl. at ¶ 50).

Davis v. Thompson

367 F. Supp. 2d 792 · District Court, D. Maryland · Mar 24, 2005

While the CSRA may not specifically address the FMLA, that does not amount to an implied waiver of sovereign immunity. … To establish a prima facie case under the Rehabilitation Act, a plaintiff must demonstrate that he (1) is a “disabled” individual; (2) is “otherwise qualified” for the position; and (3) was removed from his position as a

Hector v. Weglein

558 F. Supp. 194 · District Court, D. Maryland · Sep 1, 1982

qualifiedly immune. … If it be some affirmative showing of ill will, improper motivation, or evil purpose, the undisputed facts might well reveal its total absence prior to trial and permit the assertion of the qualified immunity.

Higginbotham v. Public Service Commission

412 Md. 112 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Dec 30, 2009

conscious and deliberate wrongs and also acted with an evil motive, as well as ill will and spite.... ” *146 According to the plaintiff, “Schisler was aware of and knew that the discharges in question ... were illegal under clearly-established … This Court’s opinions regularly qualify the principle. See Lovelace v.

Norville v. Anne Arundel County Board of Education

160 Md. App. 12 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Dec 6, 2004

Further, the court determined that it need not address appellees’ arguments regarding sovereign immunity and qualified immunity. Accordingly, appellant’s ADEA claim against the Board was then his only surviving claim. … Maryland has clearly not waived its immunity from suits brought under the ADEA, and this immunity applies to private actions brought against its agencies in both federal and state courts.