Case law

Higgins v. City of Rockville

86 Md. App. 670 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Apr 3, 1991

The Blueford case also established unequivocally that the maintenance of a public park by a municipality is a governmental function enjoying sovereign immunity: “[T]he maintenance of a public park is a governmental function … Higgins may have been guilty of contributory negligence but not so clearly and decisively so as to take the issue away from the jury.

Greenan v. Board of Educ. of Worcester County

783 F. Supp. 2d 782 · District Court, D. Maryland · Mar 8, 2011

Sovereign immunity protects government officials sued in their individual capacities “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would know.” … If Kendrick and Marx did so, as the Complaint alleges, they are not entitled to qualified immunity. Dr. Andes is a closer case.

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.

(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.

State v. Northern Central Railway Co.

44 Md. 131 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Mar 2, 1876

That the said consolidated company should have the power, from time to time, to establish its capital stock to an amount not exceeding eight millions of dollars. … It constituted therefore a condition upon which every charter was granted and held, and qualified to that extent, the contract between the State and the corporators.

Thompson v. Anderson

447 F. Supp. 584 · District Court, D. Maryland · Dec 27, 1977

A compensatory award will be appropriate only if the school board member has acted with such an impermissible motivation or with such disregard of the *592 student’s clearly established constitutional rights that his action … The holding that school officials are entitled to qualified immunity proceeded as an extension and application of Tenney v. Brandhove, 341 U.S. 367 , [ 71 S.Ct. 783 , 95 L.Ed. 1019 ] (1951); Pierson v.

Hastings v. Mechalske

336 Md. 663 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Dec 9, 1994

It was in consideration of the above-mentioned facts that we determined that the supervisors qualified for employer immunity under the Act. … Clearly something extra is needed over and beyond the duty owed the employer.” (Emphasis added)); Hoeverman v.

Runnels v. Newell

179 Md. App. 168 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Mar 28, 2008

Newell also argues that he was entitled to federal qualified immunity with regard to the 42 U.S.C. section 1983 claim. … For that reason, this court finds that Newell is entitled to federal qualified immunity on Count I.

(2000)

85 Op. Att'y Gen. 132 · Maryland Attorney General Reports · May 24, 2000

"The applicability of sovereign immunity in a particular case . . . turns on: (1) whether the entity asserting immunity qualifies for its protection; and, if so, (2) whether the legislature has waived immunity, either directly … such as IN §§ 4-302 et seq ., clearly do not apply to MAIF.

Brawner Builders v. State Highway Admin.

476 Md. 15 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Aug 25, 2021

After securing and reviewing qualifying bids and obtaining any approval required by law, the procurement officer may award the procurement contract to a qualified bidder. See SF §§ 13-103 through 13-113. … and Procurement Article, as such enactment established a process for resolving procurement disputes between contractors and State agencies.

Brooks v. Housing Authority

411 Md. 603 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Nov 17, 2009

Brooks adds as a final argument the threshold contention that the HABC is not immune from suit *616 because, as a “landlord” operating a housing project that “only benefits a specially qualified group of low income tenants … To answer that question, we examined the statute, by reference to the two-pronged Katz test. 7 We concluded that the first prong of the Katz test— requiring specific legislative authority to sue the agency — was “clearly

Rosenfeld v. Montgomery County Public Schools

41 F. Supp. 2d 581 · District Court, D. Maryland · Mar 4, 1999

The plaintiff bears the burden of establishing these elements. See id. 1. … Eleventh Amendment Immunity 1.

Butler v. State

55 Md. App. 409 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jul 13, 1983

The supervisory control of the trial judge over the stet docket was not to be doubted. *430 Not only did the trial court have a clearly established jurisdictional predicate for the relief it granted, but there were also in … As Judge Rodowsky clearly pointed out for the Court of Appeals in Wiener v.

State Highway Admin v. Brawner Builders

248 Md. App. 646 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Dec 18, 2020

Faddis has clearly abandoned that position. … with respect to the waiver of immunity in both tort and contract actions.

(1996)

81 Op. Att'y Gen. 232 · Maryland Attorney General Reports · Feb 20, 1996

to avoid the duty to defend or indemnify an employee established in this subsection. … Qualified Immunity For Public Officials The State's Attorneys' Coordinator is not entitled to assert immunity enjoyed by a public official.

West American Insurance v. Popa

108 Md. App. 73 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Feb 1, 1996

Frye , however, only indirectly addressed the issue we address today, and it involved parent-child immunity, not sovereign immunity* Although parent-child immunity is clearly based on the public policy of Maryland, the exclusionary … There, we noted that if an exclusion in an uninsured motorist policy were invalid, it would only be invalid up to the $20,000/$40,000 minimum; but we immediately qualified this statement by inserting a footnote recognizing

Lanford v. Prince George's County, MD

199 F. Supp. 2d 297 · District Court, D. Maryland · Apr 26, 2002

See Id. at 635, 785 A.2d 726 (“[U]nless the public official’s governmental employer itself has immunity from an independent source, the public official’s qualified immunity does not extend to the employer, and the employer … Under Maryland law, “[o]nce it is established that the individual is a public official and the tort was committed while performing a duty which involves the exercise of discretion, a qualified immunity attaches; namely, in

Syska v. Montgomery County Board of Education

45 Md. App. 626 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jun 10, 1980

Immunizations. … Thus, she argues that the religious exemption clauses offend the Free Exercise and Establishment Clauses of the First Amendment by favoring "the protected religion” and also offends the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth

Sadler v. Dimensions Healthcare Corp.

378 Md. 509 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Nov 26, 2003

Good-wich produced sufficient evidence of the existence of a genuine dispute as to the material fact of whether Sinai was entitled to the qualified immunity prescribed by the HCQIA.” … We held that, under the federal immunity statute, the physician had the burden to produce “sufficient evidence of the existence of a genuine dispute as to the material fact of whether [the hospital] was entitled to the qualified

Picone v. Talbott

29 Md. App. 536 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Dec 31, 1975

of the Plaintiffs case since the evidence clearly established probable cause [for the arrest].” … immunity.”