Case law

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.

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.

Johnson v. MONTMINY

285 F. Supp. 2d 673 · District Court, D. Maryland · Sep 23, 2003

It follows a fortiori from my holding that plaintiffs' claims fail on the merits that defendants would also be entitled to qualified immunity as to those claims. … and Brower decisions, they did not violate any clearly established constitutional right by their conduct.

Chin v. Wilhelm

291 F. Supp. 2d 400 · District Court, D. Maryland · Nov 13, 2003

The defendant maintains that the doctrine of qualified immunity shields him from liability for Fourth Amendment violations. (Def.’s Mem. at 25-30.) … As stated in the court’s earlier opinion, taking the facts in the complaint as true, Wilhelm could not have reasonably believed that his actions did not violate the plaintiffs’ clearly established rights.

Jackson v. Housing Opportunities Commission

289 Md. 118 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Dec 9, 1980

Our different analysis produces a different result. *124 The first prong of an effective waiver of sovereign immunity is clearly satisfied in this case. A housing authority has power "[t]o sue and be sued.” § 8 (a). … However, the express inclusion of insurance relating to operations clearly manifests the legislative contemplation that liability insurance would be purchased as well.

Pulliam v. Motor Vehicle Administration

181 Md. App. 144 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Sep 4, 2008

At that time, Arizona statutory law required the MVD to establish a Medical Advisory Board, but it had not done so. As a result, there were no medical standards established to address Bilodeau’s disorder. … The court rejected the state’s argument, explaining that the statute only limited governmental tort immunity to decisions involving the exercise of policy judgment, and did not immunize decisions that implemented or applied

Allstate v. Kim

376 Md. 275 · 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 *623 remedy" and instead "establishes a rule of substantive

Mta Lodge No. 34 v. Mta

195 Md. App. 124 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Sep 30, 2010

First, we must clearly stake out the doctrinal terrain on which the parties battle. … That issue is not before us. [26] "[T]he General Assembly has the power to establish the terms under which it will permit a waiver of immunity...." Rios v.

Outbound Maritime Corp. v. P.T. Indonesian Consortium of Construction Industries

582 F. Supp. 1136 · District Court, D. Maryland · Mar 13, 1984

The contract at issue here clearly involved an agreement for the carriage of goods by sea. … First, the legislative history of the FSIA clearly indicates that the Act was intended to withdraw the executive branch from involvement with claims of immunity and place responsibility for such determinations with the judiciary

Cox v. Prince George's County

296 Md. 162 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jun 3, 1983

Once this first step is established, then the plaintiff must show that the offending conduct occurred within the scope of the employment of the servant or under the express or implied authorization of the master. … The italicized clause clearly and unmistakably makes this point.

Furst v. Isom

85 Md. App. 407 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jan 17, 1991

He makes the point that, because the court in Pleet merely interpreted the statutory provision at issue and did not establish any new principle of law, neither overruling past precedents nor involving an issue of first impression … , not clearly foreshadowed, see Chevron Oil Company v.

Maryland State Board of Barber Examiners v. Kuhn

270 Md. 496 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Dec 5, 1973

In sum, he testified that the training in haircutting received by cosmetologists does not qualify them to cut men’s hair. … That case, however, is clearly distinguishable.

Board of Trustees, Community College of Baltimore County v. Patient First Corp.

444 Md. 452 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Aug 18, 2015

Whether the Circuit Court’s Findings as to Negligence are Clearly Erroneous CCBC contends that, even if the burden of proof was properly placed on it to establish Patient First’s negligence as an affirmative defense … In sum, the Circuit Court was not clearly erroneous in finding that CCBC failed to present sufficient evidence establishing the scope and nature of Patient First’s duty with regard to the supervision of the CCBC intern.

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

Khawaja v. Mayor of Rockville

89 Md. App. 314 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Feb 25, 1992

That subsection provides, “[a] local government may not assert governmental or sovereign immunity to avoid the duty to defend or indemnify an employee established in this subsection.” (Emphasis added). … 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 the judgment or the defendant

Brown v. State

233 Md. 288 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jan 13, 1964

Nor do subsequent Supreme Court decisions establish a total amnesty rule. The reference to “full and complete immunity against prosecution” in United States v. Murdock, 284 U. … Lauder, 82 Mich. 119 , also clearly supports the view that the privilege is available to a witness' called to testify before a grand jury.

Huff v. United States Department of Army

508 F. Supp. 2d 459 · District Court, D. Maryland · Sep 13, 2007

The Army has filed a reply. 5 According to the Army, Plaintiffs complaint fails to establish a valid jurisdictional basis or waiver of sovereign immunity. … Discussion The Army contends that Huff has failed to establish a valid jurisdictional basis for his claims or an unequivocal waiver of sovereign immunity.

Gordon v. Posner

142 Md. App. 399 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jan 31, 2002

The *430 Court then proceeded to consider whether, as a matter of law, Eagan’s conduct barred his immunity defense. … It explained that Eagan’s guilty plea could not be used to establish the intentional killing required to abrogate parent-child immunity in the wrongful death case, because Eagan had disputed the nature of the killing in his

Weakland v. United States

287 F. Supp. 2d 611 · District Court, D. Maryland · Oct 22, 2003

The record, taken in the light most favorable to Plaintiff, clearly establishes that R.R. … Thus, the evidence establishes that R.R. Gregory is a statutory employer entitled to immunity by law from tort liability. IY. Conclusion For the foregoing reasons, the motion of R.R.

Hepburn Ex Rel. Hepburn v. Athelas Institute, Inc.

324 F. Supp. 2d 752 · District Court, D. Maryland · Jul 1, 2004

The level of culpability necessary for § 1983 liability reduces the need to equitably distribute damages among tort-feasors; as evidenced by the fact that the qualified immunity and professional judgment standards either … In the qualified immunity context, the plaintiff’s actions are already accounted for in examining whether the officials acted reasonably under all of the available circumstances. Anderson v.