Case law

Campbell

District Court, D. Maryland · Mar 25, 2026

immunity; and 7) Campbell’s claims are barred by the statute of limitations and the doctrine of laches. … Qualified Immunity Defendants’ qualified immunity defense is unavailing at this stage of the litigation as to Lts.

Alexis v. Board of Education for Baltimore County Public Schools

286 F. Supp. 2d 551 · District Court, D. Maryland · Oct 6, 2003

D.The Rehabilitation Act of 1973 Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 9 requires that: No otherwise qualified individual with a disability in the United States, ... shall, solely by reason of his or her disability … Section 1983 provides a remedy for “the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution.” 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2003).

Mezu v. Morgan State University

264 F. Supp. 2d 292 · District Court, D. Maryland · Mar 31, 2003

Thus, Mezu was clearly on notice of the possibility that I would consider such affidavit and exhibits and convert the motion into one for summary judgment. See, e.g., Santiago v. … Alexander, 255 F.3d 128, 136 (4th Cir.2001), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 1081 , 122 S.Ct. 812 , 151 L.Ed.2d 697 (2002) (“The FMLA does not validly abrogate a state’s Eleventh Amendment immunity from suit.”). 7 Mezu’s claim for

Matter of Md. Off. of People's Counsel

Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Dec 20, 2023

A review of the complaint reveals that it clearly alleged violations of the PUA. … Although the complaint clearly asserted violations of the PUA, the Commission’s Order did not refer to the PUA.

Appeal Tax Court v. St. Peter's Academy

50 Md. 321 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jan 31, 1879

of protection for homeless indigent females, to qualify them by training and education for the discharge of such domestic duties as will enable them to procure protection and support, to visit and nurse the sick, and for … If in the present case there was proof that any income or revenue *342 was derived from the education of children at this academy or school hy means of charges or tuition fees, or if it were not, on the contrary, clearly

Jackson v. Warden

District Court, D. Maryland · Jan 11, 2021

Lastly, Warden Bell asserts that he is entitled to qualified immunity because no violation of a clearly established constitutional right is demonstrated.2 ECF No. 18-1. A. … The court therefore need not address Defendant’s qualified immunity defense. Act (“PLRA”), 42 U.S.C. §1997e.

Lee v. State

193 Md. App. 45 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · May 28, 2010

The fact that she may have been qualified to give the opinion does not resolve the issue of the discovery violation, however. *72 Immediately thereafter, the prosecutor proceeded to lay the foundation to qualify Dr. … In the instant case, defense counsel’s argument that Comploier would have stabbed the appellant had he not defended himself clearly was permissible.

Mealey v. Baltimore City Police Department

District Court, D. Maryland · Feb 15, 2023

The defense of sovereign immunity is a jurisdictional bar because “sovereign immunity deprives federal courts of jurisdiction to hear claims, and a court finding that a party is entitled to sovereign immunity must dismiss … It is well-established that “BPD ‘enjoys sovereign immunity from actions for damages based on state common law torts or state constitutional torts.’” Bumgardner v. Taylor, No. RDB- 18-1438, 2019 U.S. Dist.

Ferguson v. Secretary of State

249 Md. 510 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Apr 10, 1968

An emergency law shall remain in force notwithstanding such petition, but shall stand repealed thirty days after having been rejected by a majority of the qualified electors voting thereon; provided, however, that no measure … Although the affidavit in the present case fully complies with the requirements of Section 4 as to the first mandatory requirement, it clearly fails in regard to the second mandatory requirement, i.e., to state that of the

Horning v. Hardy

36 Md. App. 419 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jun 10, 1977

In the case here being considered, there is one further *429 complicating factor: the assertion of a qualified privilege by the appellees. … Rule 1086 requires that in a case tried below without a jury that we not set aside a judgment of the lower court on the evidence unless we find the trial court clearly erroneous.

(2003)

88 Op. Att'y Gen. 54 · Maryland Attorney General Reports · Mar 17, 2003

The plurality opinion clearly rejected that criterion as a part of Establishment Clause analysis, stating that "[t]his doctrine, born of bigotry, should be buried now." 530 U.S. at 829 . … The court held that the finding was not clearly erroneous, thus upholding the district court on an alternative basis. Id. at 508-10.

Government of the United Kingdom v. Northstar Services, Ltd.

1 F. Supp. 2d 521 · District Court, D. Maryland · Feb 6, 1998

A course of dealing between the United Kingdom and Panalpina has been established in this case. … This practice occurred more than 100 times with Pan-alpina Baltimore prior to the accident on April 1, 1993, clearly establishing a “course of dealing.”

Seignious v. Baltimore County Department of Corrections

District Court, D. Maryland · Dec 5, 2022

They further maintain that any threats made against Plaintiff are not a viable basis for a constitutional claim and that they are entitled to qualified immunity.3 Id. at 5-9. … Dep’t 3 Because this Court finds that Plaintiff’s constitutional claims fail for the reasons stated herein, Defendants’ qualified immunity claim is not addressed. of Soc.

Matter of Md. Off. of People's Counsel

Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Dec 22, 2023

A review of the complaint reveals that it clearly alleged violations of the PUA. … Although the complaint clearly asserted violations of the PUA, the Commission’s Order did not refer to the PUA.

Bryant v. State

393 Md. 196 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jun 5, 2006

The General Assembly, however, expressly added these two qualifiers and they must be given the effect intended. … We agree with the Court of Special Appeals’ conclusion that “the objective evidence clearly showed that the murderer acted with premeditation. We note, for example, that an individual was seen pacing near Ms.

Hargrove v. Board of Trustees

310 Md. 406 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Sep 2, 1987

To date, this group clearly encompasses gender discriminations, e.g., Caban v. Mohammed, 441 U.S. 380 , 99 S.Ct. 1760 , 60 L.Ed.2d 297 (1979); Craig v. … We pointed out (id. at 716, 426 A.2d 929 ): “The [challenged] statute does not establish a precondition for receipt of the pension; rather, it flatly prohibits *422 this group of state pensioners from engaging in their profession

Parkville Federal Savings Bank v. Maryland National Bank

343 Md. 412 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Aug 29, 1996

These kinds of problems can be avoided by requiring that writs of garnishment clearly and unambiguously identify on their face the judgment debtors to which they apply. … Banking institutions have immunity from liability for impounding property claimed by a third party, but only when that property is impounded pursuant to a court order.

Gregory Smith v. Wakefield, LP

462 Md. 713 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Feb 27, 2019

Unlike the previous two instances, however, the Court did not qualify its holding with a reference to the possibility of waiver of limitations. … While the status of this language as dicta is ultimately debatable, it is undisputable that this language clearly set forth guidance from this Court for those that wished to establish a residential lease under seal.

Smith v. Dovey

District Court, D. Maryland · Mar 22, 2021

To overcome an official’s qualified immunity defense, a plaintiff must establish “(1) that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) that the right was ‘clearly established’ at the … defendants in that case were not entitled to qualified immunity.

Black v. Elliott

District Court, D. Maryland · Aug 1, 2024

Black failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted; 2) defendants are entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity as to any claims against them in their official capacities; 3) defendants are entitled to qualified … well established that the doctrine of respondeat superior does not apply in § 1983 claims. See Love-Lane v.