Case law

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

Totaro v. Lyons

498 F. Supp. 621 · District Court, D. Maryland · Sep 19, 1980

Other Immunities A qualified immunity from liability is the general rule for executive officials charged with constitutional violations. … Whether or not they would be entitled to a qualified immunity cannot be decided on the basis of the present record.

Kelly v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

468 F. Supp. 417 · District Court, D. Maryland · Apr 9, 1979

Economou, 438 U.S. 478 , 98 S.Ct. 2894 , 57 L.Ed.2d 895 (1978), and other cases establishing absolute or qualified immunity for federal officials, the two individual defendants herein are immune from any claims for damages … It is not necessary herein to decide any of those constitutional, liberty-property or immunity issues (though defendants certainly have stated strong positions in connection therewith) in view of the Congress’ failure to

Dawson v. Prince George's County

896 F. Supp. 537 · District Court, D. Maryland · Sep 1, 1995

The Court has broad discretion in deciding whether to bifurcate claims for trial and the exercise of that discretion will be set aside only if clearly abused. Fed.R.Civ.P. 42(b); Dixon v. … The prejudicial effect of such evidence would clearly outweigh its probative value. F.R.Evid. 404(a).

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

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.

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

Kenneally v. Bayer

760 F. Supp. 503 · District Court, D. Maryland · Nov 9, 1990

The Justice Department’s position clearly indicates that there is a factual issue as to whether defendant was federal military personnel. *506 In addition to establishing that he was performing a military act, defendant must … By choosing to lodge a complaint with a federal entity that has no identifiable connection to the established military procedure for lodging formal complaints against District of Columbia National Guardsman, defendant clearly

Continental Casualty Co. v. Under Armour, Inc.

537 F. Supp. 2d 761 · District Court, D. Maryland · Feb 13, 2008

Because the work product doctrine is not a privilege, but rather a qualified immunity from discovery, 6 Fed. R.Evid. 501 is inapplicable, and Maryland law does not govern this waiver issue. … And, as will be *771 seen, the Fourth Circuit clearly has recognized that opinion work product protection, however exalted and immune from discovery, may nonetheless be waived. In Duplan Corp. v.

Verzi v. Baltimore County

333 Md. 411 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jan 17, 1994

A statutory classification reviewed under the rational basis standard enjoys a strong presumption of constitutionality and will be invalidated only if the classification is clearly arbitrary. … gender, discrimination against illegal aliens with regard, to a free public education, and a classification under which certain persons were denied the right to practice for compensation the profession for which they were qualified

Carter v. Baltimore City Police Department

District Court, D. Maryland · Aug 4, 2025

“[O]fficers are entitled to qualified immunity under § 1983 unless (1) they violated a federal statutory or constitutional right, and (2) the unlawfulness of their conduct was ‘clearly established at the time.’” … Further, “[i]f there exists a ‘legitimate question’ as to whether particular conduct violates a particular right then the right is not clearly established and qualified immunity applies.” Korb v.

Keller-Bee v. State

448 Md. 300 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jun 22, 2016

The only exception to the broad grant of absolute immunity is if an act is performed when “there is clearly no jurisdiction over the subject-matter” and “the want of jurisdiction is known to the judge.” … We see no difference in this context between the body attachment issued here and an arrest warrant, the issuance of which our cases have established constitutes a judicial act. E.g., D’Aoust v.

Houston v. Safeway Stores, Inc.

346 Md. 503 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jul 30, 1997

Safeway argued that it was immune from civil liability pursuant to § 5-378. That section, entitled “[Immunity]—Customer use of employee toilet facility in retail establishment,” states: *507 “(a) Definition. … Section 5-378 grants limited immunity to Maryland retail establishments whose customers are injured using the establishments’ non-public restrooms.

Montgomery County v. Valk Manufacturing Co.

317 Md. 185 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Sep 6, 1989

“It was not until 1894 that the question was even raised in England in a case of concurrent negligence, and the better English view, even before their statute, appears clearly to have been that contribution is not denied … These comments clearly reflect the Act’s assumption that contribution from a third party defendant is predicated on his or her direct liability to the plaintiff. 8 We have since described that case as holding “that there

Bradley v. Baltimore Police Dep't

887 F. Supp. 2d 642 · District Court, D. Maryland · Aug 22, 2012

However, under that standard, the City Defendants do not qualify in this case as employers of Bradley for Title VII purposes. … Id. at 7-9 . 3 Eleventh Amendment immunity, of course, is not relevant to Bradley’s Title VII claims because the States have waived their sovereign immunity to such claims in federal court. Fitzpatrick v.

Katz v. Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission

284 Md. 503 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Mar 21, 1979

So it is established that neither in *509 contract nor tort can a suit be maintained against a government agency, first, where specific legislative authority has not been given, second, even though such authority is given … When read as a whole, § 1-3 clearly expresses a legislative intent to waive the WSSC’s sovereign immunity.

Simms v. State

49 Md. App. 515 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Sep 2, 1981

Only where the pretrial publicity in and of itself is so passive and widespread that it is clearly prejudicial, or where the publicity is so inherently prejudicial that it "saturated the community” is the remedial step of … (b) Immunity of law enforcement officer from civil liability. — Any law enforcement officer responding to such a request shall be immune from civil liability in complying with the request as long as the officer acts in good

Weigel v. Maryland

950 F. Supp. 2d 811 · District Court, D. Maryland · Jun 19, 2013

Absolute Judicial Immunity “It is well-established that judges enjoy judicial immunity from suits arising out of the performance of their judicial functions.” Brookings v. … “It has been clearly established that Article 24 protects the same rights as the Fourteenth Amendment....” Barnes v. Montgomery Cnty., Md., 798 F.Supp.2d 688, 700 (D.Md.2011).

O'Connell v. Montgomery County

923 F. Supp. 761 · District Court, D. Maryland · Apr 30, 1996

However, Montgomery County, which does not enjoy the benefit of the qualified immunity defense, is also a defendant in this case. … immunity defense. .

Nichols v. Maryland Correctional Institution—Jessup

186 F. Supp. 2d 575 · District Court, D. Maryland · Feb 1, 2002

Hearing Officer John Sandstrom A hearing officer in a prison disciplinary proceeding may be liable if his conduct “violated 'clearly established law’ in conducting [the] hearing in the manner in which he did.” Barry v. … The Supreme Court has held that hearing officers in prison disciplinary proceedings are not entitled to absolute immunity, but may be entitled to qualified immunity. Cleavinger v.