Case law

Mitchell v. Housing Authority

200 Md. App. 176 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · May 25, 2011

It concluded, as had the Jackson Court, that *196 that statute clearly satisfies the first prong of the Katz test. … The LGTCA establishes the procedural framework for the actions that may be brought against local government entities where immunity from tort liability for governmental actions has been waived.

Korotki v. Goughan

597 F. Supp. 1365 · District Court, D. Maryland · Sep 28, 1984

QUALIFIED “GOOD FAITH” IMMUNITY OF DEFENDANTS GOUGHAN AND CARTWRIGHT In post-trial motions, defendants have further argued that defendants Goughan and Cartwright are entitled to qualified good faith immunity under the principles … Accordingly, defendant Goughan’s and defendant Cartwright’s post-trial motions for relief on grounds of qualified immunity are denied. VI.

Smith v. Bernier

701 F. Supp. 1171 · District Court, D. Maryland · Oct 27, 1988

In fact, the statutes clearly limit the state’s waiver of immunity solely to actions brought in the Maryland state courts. … Such persons are clearly subject to abuses of the government’s significant power over them.

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.

Gerety & Antkowiak v. State

249 Md. App. 484 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Feb 24, 2021

To qualify for immunity under that subsection, a defendant must satisfy three elements. … The Fiscal and Policy Note for the 2015 amendments confirms this intention: [The amendment] establishes that immunity applies to situations involving a person who, in good faith provides

Duncan v. Koustenis

260 Md. 98 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Dec 11, 1970

In any event, it seems apparent that once the immunity of the School Board is established, the depletion of the public treasury rationale would have no relevance to the question of whether its immunity extends to public school … In applying the above tests, it seems clear that a public school teacher would not qualify as a public official.

White v. Maryland Transportation Authority

151 F. Supp. 2d 651 · District Court, D. Maryland · Jun 1, 2001

White does not clearly testify on this record. Opp’n Ex. A at 29; Opp’n Ex. B at ¶ 11. … Under Maryland law, a plaintiff may not defeat summary judgment on the issue of qualified immunity simply by alleging malice.

Davis v. Board of Education for Prince George's County

222 Md. App. 246 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Apr 3, 2015

The appellants argued to the court that the letter from the MIA established that the Board had not complied with the filing requirements of EA section 4-105, and therefore was not entitled to the immunity set forth in CJ … The appellants also argued that the letter established that the Board did not have any liability insurance, and for that reason as well did not comply with EA section 4-105 and was not entitled to immunity under CJ section

Bradshaw v. Prince George's County

284 Md. 294 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jan 18, 1979

If, however, the words are susceptible of more than one construction, they should be given the meaning intended by the legislature, and courts may resort to well-established rules of statutory construction as aids in determining … 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. Robinson, id.; Harris, id.; Cocking v.

International Refugee Organization v. Republic Steamship Corp.

92 F. Supp. 674 · District Court, D. Maryland · Jul 8, 1950

This has been clearly-announced by the Supreme Court in numerous cases and is now firmly established. In Gully v. … Today, even more clearly than in the past, ‘the federal nature of the right to be established is decisive — not the source of the authority to establish it.’ Id.” (Emphasis supplied). Later in General Committee v.

Tamara A. v. Montgomery County Dept. of Health & Human Services

407 Md. 180 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jan 14, 2009

In Artis and in Shoemaker we dismissed an appeal from the denial of a motion for summary judgment based on qualified immunity. … official immunity, statutory immunity, or any other type of immunity, are not appealable under the Maryland collateral order doctrine.”

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.

Tadjer v. Montgomery County

300 Md. 539 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Aug 22, 1984

The petition for certiorari is limited to the issue of governmental immunity. … When the County issued building permits it was clearly engaged in a governmental function. Spriggs v. Levitt & Sons, Inc., 267 Md. 679, 685-86 , 298 A.2d 442, 445 (1973); Irvine v.

Innes v. Board of Regents of the University System

29 F. Supp. 3d 566 · District Court, D. Maryland · Jul 1, 2014

“In general, to establish a continuing violation the plaintiff must establish that the unconstitutional or illegal act was a ... fixed and continuing practice.” Nat’l Adver. Co. v. … As he noted, these cases concern sovereign immunity. Much like the Board in Jean , the Board of Regents here has not claimed sovereign or Eleventh Amendment immunity.

Austin v. Mayor of Baltimore

286 Md. 51 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Sep 13, 1979

Austin urges that if we do not abrogate the doctrine of sovereign immunity, we should, nonetheless, “establish a new standard to determine if a given activity is governmental or proprietary in nature.” … The Department’s activities here involved were clearly within its powers and authority.

Gohari v. Darvish

363 Md. 42 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Feb 23, 2001

Communications arising out of the employer-employee relationship “clearly enjoy a qualified privilege.” McDermott, 317 Md. at 28 , 561 A.2d at 1046 (citing General Motors Corp. v. … Concomitantly, the jury was not instructed regarding the defense of qualified immunity, or what conduct might defeat such a defense, let alone the standard of proof applicable to such an analysis.

(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.

Mora v. City of Gaithersburg

462 F. Supp. 2d 675 · District Court, D. Maryland · Sep 29, 2006

Further, the City’s interpretation of § 5-103 of the Public Safety Article is at odds with the provisions establishing who is legally qualified to own and possess firearms. … The City has simply grafted its own qualifications on the list of qualifications established by and made exclusive by State law.

Woodruff v. Trepel

125 Md. App. 381 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Mar 2, 1999

In Maryland, to establish a prima facie case for defamation, “a plaintiff must ordinarily establish that the defendant made a defamatory statement to a third person; that the statement was false; that the defendant was legally … Woodruffs attorney clearly “had relation” to the child custody proceedings.

Hayes v. State

183 Md. App. 742 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jan 6, 2009

the Assistant State’s Attorney’s qualified immunity.” … In addition, parents are clearly entitled to due process when action is taken to remove their children.