Case law

Ferguson v. Loder

186 Md. App. 707 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jul 7, 2009

Loder moved to dismiss, arguing that she was entitled to qualified immunity. … Loder also joined in the motion, and repeated her claim of qualified immunity under the MTCA. 4 .

Barlow v. Marriott Corp.

328 F. Supp. 624 · District Court, D. Maryland · Jun 30, 1971

The only encouragement which the Congress held out with regard to the establishment of and compliance with such standards was to make available in connection with plans qualifying under the statute tax deductions not available … under section 401(a), and do not establish rights independently of constitutional rights, which employee-beneficiaries can enforce against those who fail so to continue a profit-sharing plan which has been deemed qualified

Kline v. State of Maryland Maryland Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services

District Court, D. Maryland · Dec 18, 2020

A court faced with such a claim is required to make a preliminary determination whether the defendant official is entitled to qualified immunity. … was clearly established at the time the violation occurred[.]”

Bord v. Baltimore Co.

Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Dec 17, 2014

, or establishes that ‘no reasonable officer could have believed that the conduct complained of was lawful.’” … Appellee contends that the circuit court considered appellant’s allegations in comparison with the case law concerning qualified immunity for public officials and correctly ruled that the actions of both officers were not

Campbell v. Wexford Health Sources, Inc.

District Court, D. Maryland · Sep 25, 2020

Miller ordered lab tests to rule out other possible causes such as diabetes and Sjogren’s syndrome, an immune system disorder. (Id. at 33, 36). … Farnham, 394 F.3d 469, 481–82 (7th Cir. 2005) (denying qualified immunity to prison officials who denied inmates toothpaste for three and a half weeks); Chance v.

Floyd v. Baltimore City

241 Md. App. 199 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jun 4, 2019

Even if she was qualified to “support and possibly to implement the policy of the [Council] and [Committee] regarding the [Act],” she was not qualified “to make or explain that policy.” … remedies following establishment of the merits of its foundational claim seems to us to run counter to the intent of the Act[.]

Alston v. Robinson

791 F. Supp. 569 · District Court, D. Maryland · Mar 31, 1992

from civil damages under the doctrine of qualified immunity enunciated in Harlow v. … the plaintiffs’ work release statuses did not violate the plaintiffs’ constitutional rights “in light of clearly established law.”

United Prison Equipment Co. v. Board of County Commissioners

907 F. Supp. 908 · District Court, D. Maryland · Nov 15, 1995

. § 5-403(d), (e), to assert whatever common law immunity is available. … . § 5-401 et seq., waives defendant's immunity in this case. But, ‘‘[t]he LGTCA, by its own terms, contains no specific waiver of governmental immunity when a governmental entity is sued in its own capacity....

(2011)

96 Op. Att'y Gen. 75 · 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 the

French v. Hines

182 Md. App. 201 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Oct 3, 2008

Moreover, the court noted that qualified immunity under the MTCA does not attach when a State employee acts with malice or gross negligence. … In its jury instructions, the court below defined “malice” in the context of immunity for violations of State law; the court instructed that appellant was entitled to qualified immunity for violations of State law if he acted

Khan v. State of Md.

903 F. Supp. 881 · District Court, D. Maryland · Sep 29, 1995

Thus, the burden clearly shifts to MVA to articulate legitimate nondiscriminatory reasons for Khan’s non-selection. … To establish a prima facie case of disparate impact, Khan must show (1) that there is an underrepresentation of the qualified blacks promoted to the positions at issue, and (2) that specific elements of MVA's promotion criteria

State v. Hogg

311 Md. 446 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jan 14, 1988

Here the trial court clearly rejected any sovereign immunity bar to the counterclaim and thereby decided an important issue. … Accordingly, the reasoning that underlies the immediate appealability of an order denying absolute immunity indicates to us that the denial of qualified immunity should be similarly appealable: in each case; the district

Burns v. Mayor of Rockville

71 Md. App. 293 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · May 11, 1987

They assure us that since municipal immunity was established by judicial decision rather than by the General Assembly, this Court possesses the authority to accomplish their request. We do not accede to their request. … The provisions of Art. 28, § 2-111, which the Court construed, provided: "(a) Establishment; purposes. — The Commission shall establish an adequate comprehensive insurance program: (1) To compensate for injury to or death

Tinsley v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority

429 Md. 217 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Oct 26, 2012

In considering whether the doctrine of sovereign immunity prevents a court from exercising jurisdiction in a given suit, we ask “ ‘(1) whether the entity asserting immunity qualifies for the protection; and, if so, (2) whether … Tinsley countered that she established the existence of a mandatory policy that stations were to be cleaned only after peak travel times, noting that because a policy existed, WMA-TA was not immune from suit.

State Tax Commission v. Baltimore National Bank

169 Md. 65 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jun 18, 1935

Fifty thousand shares of common stock of a par value of ten dollars each were issued, all except the directors’ qualifying shares being held in escrow subject to options of purchase offered in furtherance of the liquidation … The fact that the State has power to undertake such enterprises, and that they are undertaken for *75 what the State conceives to be the public benefit, does not establish immunity. * * * The necessary protection of the independence

Mass Transit Administration v. Granite Construction Co.

57 Md. App. 766 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Mar 6, 1984

More importantly, the evidence does not establish that MTA “misled” Granite. … That provision was clearly intended to avoid one bidder gaining an advantage over other bidders by acquiring information not furnished the other bidders.

Tyner v. Dagilas

District Court, D. Maryland · Aug 21, 2024

Accordingly, Tyner had no clearly established right to the information he claims Dagilas denied him. Dagilas has qualified immunity to his claim. 3. … In the absence of any authority clearly establishing the right at issue, the defendants have qualified immunity to this claim.

Nam v. Montgomery County

127 Md. App. 172 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jul 1, 1999

As such, Montgomery County, Maryland, has waived sovereign immunity as the acts of its employees under the local government tort claims act established in Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article § 5-403. … In that case this Court stated: A legislative waiver of immunity by a municipality is ineffective unless its legislature has clearly stated an intention to waive immunity and either there are funds available for satisfying

Mayor & City Cncl of Balt. v. Wallace

Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Feb 1, 2024

Consistent with the General Assembly’s intent, the Recreational Use Statute does not shield local governments from the well-established common law principle that local governments are not immune from tort liability if performing … sovereign immunity in the future.

Glanden v. State

249 Md. App. 422 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Feb 5, 2021

Based on those changes, we 14 concluded that “[t]he immunity covered by the 2014 legislation clearly covered, in Subsection (c), a person experiencing an overdose when another … In enacting Subsection (c), “the legislature clearly intended to provide limited immunity from arrest, charge, or prosecution, to a person experiencing an overdose if the evidence was obtained solely as a result of the