Case law

Little v. Federal Bureau of Investigation

793 F. Supp. 652 · District Court, D. Maryland · Jul 7, 1992

Fourth and finally, because it is clear as a matter of law from the second amended complaint that the individual defendants’ conduct could not have been said to violate clearly established law, they are obviously entitled … to qualified immunity as a matter of law.

Fraternal Order of Police v. Montgomery County

446 Md. 490 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Feb 23, 2016

rights of which a reasonable person would have known,” they enjoyed qualified immunity from monetary damages. … The trial judge denied such relief based on qualified immunity.

Stevenson v. Baltimore Baseball Club, Inc.

250 Md. 482 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jul 3, 1968

Communications arising out of the employer-employee relationship clearly enjoy a qualified privilege, and could be included in the line of cases which extend the privilege to groups engaged in a common purpose, Prosser, Torts … See also, Evans, Legal Immunity for Defamation, 24 Minn. L. Rev. 607 (1940).

Phillips v. Chang

Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Mar 28, 2023

Dismissal on this ground is proper when “the facts and allegations [in the complaint] establish a lack of subject[-]matter jurisdiction.” Id. … The Supreme Court stated clearly that it has “no intention of relinquishing [its jurisdiction] to any degree or extent.” Id.

ARA Health Services, Inc. v. Department of Public Safety & Correctional Services

344 Md. 85 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Nov 26, 1996

The applicability of sovereign immunity in a particular case, therefore, turns on: (1) whether the entity asserting immunity qualifies for its protection; and, if so, (2) whether the legislature has waived immunity, either … The terms of the contract clearly state that the parties to the contract were CMS and the State of Maryland, “acting through” the DOC.

Bennett v. Harford County

Court of Appeals of Maryland · Aug 30, 2023

To be qualified to serve as a Council member, a candidate must “have been a resident and a qualified voter of the County for at least two years immediately preceding election or appointment,” and (other than the Council … Before his removal can be compelled by mandamus his constitutional or statutory disqualification should be clearly apparent.

Blue Buffalo v. Comptroller

243 Md. App. 693 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Dec 20, 2019

That an activity is not ancillary does not end this analysis; unprotected activities only forfeit the statutory immunity when they establish a nontrivial additional connection with the taxing State. … Such a sweeping definition would render the immunity entirely subject to corporate discretion. 4 This relationship is clearly articulated in Blue Buffalo’s Pet Detective Manual.

Bd. of Education v. Sturm

Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jun 23, 2026

Varghese, 493 Md. 1, 11-16 (2025), the Court was clearly referring to sovereign immunity. … Our caselaw establishes that an effective waiver of sovereign 20 immunity requires two things.

Dennard v. Towson University

62 F. Supp. 3d 446 · District Court, D. Maryland · Oct 16, 2014

Common law sovereign immunity “predated” adoption of the Eleventh Amendment, which “confirmed, rather than established, sovereign immunity as a constitutional principle.” Stewart v. N. … Accordingly, the Maryland Court of Appeals adopted a two-part test to determine whether sovereign immunity applies in a specific case: (1) does the entity asserting sovereign immunity qualify, and (2) has the Legislature

Baltimore County v. RTKL Associates Inc.

380 Md. 670 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Apr 9, 2004

The Councü noted that, although sovereign immunity was generally avaüable, legislative exceptions had been made to that doctrine and a number of State and local agencies had obtained comprehensive insurance or had established … Unit case established that it was “the doctrine of sovereign immunity” that precluded the assertion of limitations against the State in a contract action. Central Coll. Unit, supra, 277 Md. at 628 , 356 A.2d at 556-57 .

Brady v. Ralph Parsons Co.

308 Md. 486 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Feb 2, 1987

Parsons had a duty to take reasonable precautionary steps to protect the employees on the subway, such as Donald Brady, from ... clearly foreseeable dangers. … In administering this test, we have established five criteria to consult for guidance.

Manders v. Brown

101 Md. App. 191 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jul 5, 1994

The only support provided by Manders is the cryptic allegation that “the trial court’s view on [appellees’] ‘immunity’ as individuals for acts as public officials clearly suggested that it was impossible for [Manders] to … If appellees cannot establish that the actions *216 in question were taken while they were functioning as legislators, the legislative immunity defense should be rejected.

Jones v. Maryland-National Capital Park & Planning Commission

82 Md. App. 314 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Mar 30, 1990

As a “public official,” a police officer is protected by a qualified immunity against civil liability for non-malicious acts performed within the scope of his authority. … This immunity is in no way circumscribed by describing clearly discretionary duties as if they were mandatory in nature.

Tatum v. Gigliotti

80 Md. App. 559 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Nov 3, 1989

Slye was qualified as a physician with a specialization in allergies. Dr. Slye pointed out in his testimony that the treatment of asthma was part of his specialization in allergy and immunology. … It is established as a general principle that only a party aggrieved by a court’s judgment may take an appeal and that one may not appeal or cross-appeal from a judgment wholly in his favor. Adm’r, Motor Veh. Adm. v.

Tschechtelin v. Samuels

124 Md. App. 389 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jan 5, 1999

Sovereign Immunity The doctrine of sovereign immunity is well established in Maryland. ARA Health Services, Inc. v. Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services, 344 Md. 85, 91 , 685 A.2d 435 (1996); Katz v. … . *398 The Court of Appeals has set out the preliminary questions when the defense of sovereign immunity has been raised: (1) whether the entity asserting immunity qualifies for its protection; and, if so, (2) whether the

Bennett v. Gravelle

323 F. Supp. 203 · District Court, D. Maryland · Jan 19, 1971

In Cobb, supra, the court stated a roughly accurate generalization that members of a city council, and other public officers not in the exceptional category of officers having complete immunity, would have a qualified privilege … Courts have been reluctant to grant immunity where the acts of officials have clearly gone beyond the scope of their duties.

Jet Line Services, Inc. v. M/V Marsa El Hariga

462 F. Supp. 1165 · District Court, D. Maryland · Nov 27, 1978

Such cases, however, are clearly recognized to be “rare.” … The requirements of Section 1605 are precisely and clearly written so as. to give effect to the restrictive theory of sovereign immunity.

(1997)

82 Op. Att'y Gen. 23 · Maryland Attorney General Reports · Jan 6, 1997

Similarly, the Court may include in the rule another well-established basis for absolute immunity: prosecutorial immunity. In Imbler v. … If this framework for prosecutorial immunity were applied to disciplinary matters, Bar Counsel would only be entitled to qualified immunity under the common law.

Rios v. Montgomery County

386 Md. 104 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Apr 7, 2005

Moreover, the court stated that because the legislature has waived sovereign immunity in limited contexts, it also has the power to establish the conditions for such a waiver to be effective and to exempt minors from compliance … Study Group, 438 U.S. 59 , 88 n. 32, 98 S.Ct. 2620 , 2638 n. 32, 57 L.Ed.2d 595 , 620 n. 32 (1978) (“[o]ur cases have clearly established that ‘[a] person has no property, no vested interest, in any rule of the common law

Muntjan v. Waltemeyer

166 F. Supp. 2d 424 · District Court, D. Maryland · Oct 9, 2001

immunity because a reasonable officer could have believed that their conduct was lawful in light of clearly established law and the information they possessed. … Muntjan’s apartment is protected by qualified immunity. Additionally, Mr. Muntjan has presented no evidence that his residence was “ransacked” on the evening of March 4.