Case law

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.

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.

Kapiloff v. Dunn

27 Md. App. 514 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jul 23, 1975

Therefore the right to recover was clearly governed by New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U. S. 254 . … We take it that appellants contend that by creating a constitutional qualified privilege for false statements of fact, the Supreme Court immunized all expressions of opinion about individuals in the public official-public

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.

Silverman v. Maryland Deposit Insurance Fund Corp.

317 Md. 306 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Nov 15, 1989

Alternatively United Wire says that appellees acted beyond *324 their authority, that sovereign immunity does not apply to protect ultra vires activity and that the statute conferring qualified immunity on the Director of … The special statutory statement of public official, qualified immunity for any MDIF Director is concerned with personal financial liability and does not prevent suit seeking nonstatutory judicial review.

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.

McCann-McCalpine

District Court, D. Maryland · Jan 23, 2026

conduct was clearly established at the time.’” … Defendants asserted qualified immunity in their motion.

Williams v. Peninsula Regional Medical Center

213 Md. App. 644 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Sep 5, 2013

They filed a statement of claim, a certificate of merit of a qualified expert, and two medical reports from two separate physicians. … Although this case deals with summary judgment and not a motion to dismiss, the standard for what qualifies as good faith and reasonable grounds is instructive.

Miller v. State

174 Md. 362 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Apr 21, 1938

The mere fact that the preliminary motion was inconsistent with the established practice in this state did not prevent its indicating the ground of defendant’s objection. Sugarman v. … In other words, the question is not whether he waived an immunity, but whether he had an immunity to waive. The validity of Code Pub. Gen.

Paice, LLC v. Hyundai Motor Co.

302 F.R.D. 128 · District Court, D. Maryland · Jul 11, 2014

The qualified immunity covering documents or other tangible things falling within the classification of fact work-produet “is little more than an ‘anti-freeloader’ rule designed to prohibit one adverse party from riding to … Because the Court finds that the subject documents qualify as opinion work product (or fact work-product unavailable due to the lack of substantial need and hardship), and therefore, warrant immunity from disclosure, the

Doe v. Salisbury University

107 F. Supp. 3d 481 · District Court, D. Maryland · Jun 2, 2015

Qualified immunity provides immunity from suit, not merely a defense to *491 liability. Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 237 , 129 S.Ct. 808 , 172 L.Ed.2d 565 (2009). … Qualified immunity turns on two inquiries: (1) “whether the facts that a plaintiff has alleged ... or shown ... make out a violation of a constitutional right,” -and (2) “whether the right at issue was ‘clearly established

DiPino v. Davis

354 Md. 18 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · May 11, 1999

damages if she acted without malice; (2) the test for immunity on the § 1983 claim was whether it was objectively reasonable for DiPino to believe that her conduct did not violate a clearly established statutory or Constitutional … Once 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 *49 immunity attaches; namely, in the absence of malice

Allstate Insurance v. Kyong Ho Kim

376 Md. 276 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jul 31, 2003

Unless, as in Dua , the statute clearly fails one of those tests, both must be considered. … Riverdale Heights Fire Co., supra, 308 Md. 556, 560 , 520 A.2d 1319, 1321 , we held that the granting of immunity effects more than “mere change of practice, procedure, or remedy” and instead “establishes a rule of substantive

Donlan v. Smith

662 F. Supp. 352 · District Court, D. Maryland · Sep 17, 1986

Since defendant Smith followed duly established court procedures, he is clearly entitled to qualified immunity in a suit brought against him under § 1983, pursuant to standards established by the Supreme Court in Harlow v … Accordingly, even if, in any event, a valid § 1983 claim could be asserted against defendant Smith, he would possess a qualified immunity which would bar any recovery of damages by plaintiff.

Kerns v. United States

534 F. Supp. 2d 633 · District Court, D. Maryland · Feb 7, 2008

ANALYSIS When FTCA subject matter jurisdiction is challenged under Rule 12(b)(1), the plaintiff bears the burden of persuasion and must establish an unequivocal waiver of immunity with respect to her claim. … The evidence beyond the allegations found in the complaint, however, clearly establishes that Scott was not acting within the scope of her employment, thereby precluding the viability of a FTCA claim against the United States

(2001)

86 Op. Att'y Gen. 193 · Maryland Attorney General Reports · Aug 23, 2001

The application of the doctrine in a particular case depends on: (1) whether the entity asserting immunity qualifies for its protection; and (2) whether the General Assembly has waived immunity, either directly or by necessary … Nothing in the statute establishing the Office of People's Counsel demonstrates any intent by the Legislature to waive immunity generally as to the Office.

Simond v. State

127 Md. 29 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Nov 11, 1915

the witness stand, he is immune.” … The eighth, ninth and tenth show conduct of traverser which clearly reflected on his guilt. The eleventh is similar to the sixth.

Maryland Attorney General Opinion 96 OAG 076

Maryland Attorney General Reports · Oct 5, 2011

The Coordinator is to establish and implement training programs for State’s Attorneys and their staffs, devise uniform reporting procedures for gathering statistical information related to the prosecutorial function, and … Fitzsimmons, 509 U.S. 259, 269 (1993).5 With respect to coverage under the Maryland Tort Claims Act, it is our view that an individual appointed as a Special Assistant State’s Attorney will qualify for coverage under