Case law

McDonald v. Bishop

District Court, D. Maryland · Mar 22, 2021

Under the Free Exercise Clause, a prisoner has a clearly established right to a diet consistent with his religious principles. Wall, 741 F.3d at 498–500. … McMillan, 502 F.2d 1326, 1331 (4th Cir. 1974) (finding that qualified immunity “has no application to a suit for declaratory or injunctive relief”); see also Cloaninger ex rel. Estate of Cloaninger v.

Rich v. United States

158 F. Supp. 2d 619 · District Court, D. Maryland · Jul 13, 2001

“Government officials performing discretionary functions are entitled to qualified immunity from liability for civil damages to the extent that ‘their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … To obtain qualified immunity, Defendants must establish that in light of this clearly established law, the agents reasonably could have believed that the search of Plaintiffs’ home was lawful.

Knussman v. State of Md.

16 F. Supp. 2d 601 · District Court, D. Maryland · Aug 13, 1998

To determine whether qualified immunity shields a public official courts should: “(1) identify the right allegedly violated, (2) decide whether that right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation, and … Under these circumstances, the law can hardly be deemed “clearly established” and, accordingly, qualified immunity is available to all of the individual defendants. 5 Moreover, contrary to plaintiffs as *611 sertion that

Dorsey v. Sokoloff

381 F. Supp. 3d 521 · District Court, D. Maryland · May 17, 2019

The second prong of the qualified immunity analysis examines whether a police officer's conduct violated a constitutional right that was clearly established at the time that the conduct occurred. … In consequence, the Fourth Circuit held that the officer was not entitled to qualified immunity for seven of the Taser shocks because he had violated the clearly established constitutional right of an arrestee to be free

Kane v. Lewis

989 F. Supp. 2d 468 · District Court, D. Maryland · Dec 20, 2013

However, the principle itself — as well as its purposes to protect the safety of the officers and the occupants— could not be more clearly established. … Of course, as to plaintiff's state law claim, there is no qualified immunity at all. .

Corral v. Montgomery County

4 F. Supp. 3d 739 · District Court, D. Maryland · Mar 5, 2014

Qualified immunity is an affirmative defense to Section 1983 claims and “protects government officials ‘from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … If the right was not clearly established, the qualified immunity doctrine shields a defendant officer from liability.

Williams v. Prince George's County

112 Md. App. 526 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Dec 4, 1996

Because of these considerations, immunity is granted to officers who act reasonably, albeit mistakenly, in light of clearly established law and the information they possessed without the benefit of hindsight. … immunity because their actions were in conformity with “clearly established” legal rules.

Dennis v. Board of Education

21 F. Supp. 3d 497 · District Court, D. Maryland · May 8, 2014

immunity. 3 School officials *503 performing discretionary functions have qualified immunity — they are shielded from liability for civil damages to the extent “ ‘their conduct does not .violate clearly established statutory … was ‘clearly established’ at the time of its violation.”

Schiffbauer v. Schmidt

95 F. Supp. 3d 846 · District Court, D. Maryland · Mar 24, 2015

Furthermore, because qualified immunity is an immunity from suit “rather than a mere defense to liability; and like an absolute immunity, it is effectively lost if a case is erroneously permitted to go to trial,” Mitchell … “Unless the plaintiffs allegations state a claim of violation of clearly established law, a defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled to dismissal before *853 the commencement of discovery.”

Solis v. Prince George's County

153 F. Supp. 2d 793 · District Court, D. Maryland · Jul 13, 2001

Qualified Immunity under 12 U.S.C. § 1983 Under § 1983, state officials performing discretionary functions are entitled to qualified immunity where their conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … Accordingly, the Court finds that Officer Ruffin has not established an entitlement to qualified immunity as to Plaintiffs Fourth Amendment claim. b.

Dent v. Montgomery County Police Department

745 F. Supp. 2d 648 · District Court, D. Maryland · Sep 17, 2010

Qualified Immunity The doctrine of qualified immunity shields government officials “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which … If the right was not clearly established, the qualified immunity doctrine shields a defendant officer from liability.

Jeffries v. Ayoub

District Court, D. Maryland · Jul 23, 2019

Qualified immunity “shields government officials from liability for civil damages, provided that their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights within the knowledge of a reasonable … If, as a matter of law, the right at issue was not clearly established at the time, then Ayoub is qualifiedly immune.

Okwa v. Harper

360 Md. 161 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jul 28, 2000

... assessed in light of the legal rules that were ‘clearly established’ at the time it was taken. … In determining whether Appellees were entitled to qualified immunity from Appellants’ § 1983 claim we first look to the relevant “legal rules that were ‘clearly established’ at the time” which governed Appellees actions during

D'Aoust v. Diamond

197 Md. App. 195 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Dec 29, 2010

Qualified Immunity Having established that appellees are entitled to assert the defense of qualified immunity, we now come to the heart of the matter on appeal: whether the facts alleged and their permissible inferences would … “qualified” immunity.

Transcare Maryland, Inc. v. Murray

431 Md. 225 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Apr 22, 2013

The County noted that, while the firefighter was clearly immune under the Good Samaritan Act, “[t]he volunteer fire department, however, is a private nonprofit corporation which does not appear to have the statutory immunity … Act, regardless of whether the company’s employee may qualify for immunity under the statute.

Nero v. Mosby

233 F. Supp. 3d 463 · District Court, D. Maryland · Jan 27, 2017

The shield of qualified immunity is lost when a government official (1) violates a constitutional right and (2) that right was clearly established. Graham v. … That is, the right must have been clearly established at the time of events at issue. See Graham v. Gagnon, 831 F.3d 176, 182 (4th Cir. 2016). See discussion of qualified immunity below. .

State v. Jett

316 Md. 248 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · May 31, 1989

Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511 , 105 S.Ct. 2806, 2815-17 , 86 L.Ed.2d 411 (1985) (Attorney General qualified immunity); Nixon v. … Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511 , 105 S.Ct. 2806 , 86 L.Ed.2d 411 (1985) (denial of a claim of qualified immunity, to the extent it turns on an issue of law); Nixon v.

Murphy v. Carroll

202 F. Supp. 2d 421 · District Court, D. Maryland · May 10, 2002

To determine the applicability of qualified immunity, this court follows a two-step analysis. … “Clearly established,” for pin-poses of qualified immunity analysis, means that the “contours of the right must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates that right.”

Moxley v. Town of Walkersville

601 F. Supp. 2d 648 · District Court, D. Maryland · Mar 6, 2009

Qualified immunity protects government officials “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known … Nonetheless, “qualified immunity ... will be upheld on a [Rule] 12(b)(6) motion only when the immunity is established on the face of the complaint,” Hafley v.

Williams v. United States

348 F. Supp. 3d 450 · District Court, D. Maryland · Dec 20, 2017

In short, qualified immunity clearly obtains here. … Williams' rights were "clearly established" at the time of the alleged violation.