Case law

Plourde v. Ferguson

519 F. Supp. 14 · District Court, D. Maryland · Aug 15, 1980

These uncontradicted materials establish that both Ferguson and Graham are federal employees who acted within the outer perimeter of their duties in taking all the actions complained of by plaintiff. … Rather, plaintiff contends that, as a matter of law, federal employees enjoy only a qualified immunity to suit, citing Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232 , 94 S.Ct. 1683 , 40 L.Ed.2d 90 (1974).

Vogel v. Crown Cork & Seal Co.

36 F. Supp. 74 · District Court, D. Maryland · Dec 23, 1940

It is still the generally accept *75 ed judicial view that a corporation is an inhabitant of only that state where it is incorporated; but it is well established that the venue provision of section 112, Title 28 U.S.C.A., … The extent of the defendant’s activities in this State clearly warrant the view that it is subject to suit here, unless the venue statute prevents it. International Harvester Co. v.

Offen v. Brenner

402 Md. 191 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Nov 14, 2007

The test, since its establishment in Gersh , has been applied by this Court in five cases. *202 In Miner v. … The policy extending immunity under Gersh applied, “[tjaking full account of the vital public function of health care malpractice proceedings initiated before arbitration panels” as well as the procedural safeguards established

Board of Education v. Marks-Sloan

428 Md. 1 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Aug 21, 2012

’ view, because there is no express mention of “indemnification” in the statute, the Legislature clearly intended that county board of education employees receive immunity for their negligent acts committed in the course … from civil liability or defenses established by any other provision of the Code or available at common law to which the volunteer may be entitled.

Bartlett v. Christhilf

69 Md. 219 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jun 13, 1888

The law is so stated very clearly by Lord Eldon in Johnson vs. Evans, (3 Esp., 32); it is so stated also, not indeed with absolute certainty, in a note to the well known case of Hodgson vs. … At all events, we are not prepared to establish such a doctrine, in the absence of all authority to sanction it, and in view of the vexatious and multiplied litigation to which it would inevitably lead.

Estate of Burris v. State

360 Md. 721 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Sep 14, 2000

That Act “established a limited waiver of the State’s immunity in certain tort actions.” Condon v. State, 332 Md. 481, 492 , 632 A.2d 753, 758 (1993). … Petitioners averred that "[tjheir collective failure to supply NVG’s, provide NVG training, adequately establish and enforce a speed limit, and establish a viable medical evacuation plan, played as much of a role in Major

McKeel v. United States

178 F. Supp. 2d 493 · District Court, D. Maryland · Dec 19, 2001

Furthermore, the plain language of the contract awarded to Horton clearly establishes that the contractor assumed the responsibility for protecting workers on the site. 3 First, the contract explicitly states: The Contractor … Case law clearly establishes that “[t]he decision to hire an independent contractor to render services for the United States is precisely the type of decision that the exception is designed to shield from liability because

Leviton Manufacturing Co. v. Shanghai Meihao Electric, Inc.

613 F. Supp. 2d 670 · District Court, D. Maryland · May 12, 2009

immunity. … Moulinage et Retorderie de Chavanoz, 487 F.2d 480, 484-85 (4th cir.1973) (recognizing that work product documents, in a patent case, enjoy qualified immunity and are discoverable on a demonstration of substantial need and

Bass v. Rohr

57 Md. App. 609 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jun 7, 1984

Conversely, in those cases where such immunity has not been so extended, two types of reasons have emerged: “Either the record failed to establish that the involved agency, while possessed of certain judicial or quasi-judicial … As we observed initially in this discussion, the privilege available to parties and witnesses, whether absolute or qualified, evolves from, and is part of, the common law governing actions for defamation.

Lowery v. Prince George's County, Md.

960 F. Supp. 952 · District Court, D. Maryland · Apr 15, 1997

The district court also ruled that the officers were protected by qualified immunity as to several claims brought against them in their individual capacities; awarded summary judgment to all defendants on claims brought under … That same conclusion clearly is warranted here. 13 V.

Green v. State

59 Md. 123 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jul 14, 1882

The omitted words show most clearly that it was a personal privilege which was accorded,—relief from the duty, if they chose to avail themselves of it. … Exemption imports competency, and the immunity should only be claimed by the privileged person.

O & B, Inc. v. Md.-Nat'l Cap. P. & P. Commission

279 Md. 459 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Feb 22, 1977

for the state or its agencies is firmly established in Maryland law. … The words ‘other corporate acts’ clearly indicate the extent to which the permission to sue and be sued was intended. The language used is not to sue and be sued as other corporations.

Sindorf v. Jacron Sales Co.

27 Md. App. 53 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jun 25, 1975

The transcript of the trial clearly shows that the parties considered the Virginia corporation to be the actual defendant. … “If it has relatively less weight from a social point of view, the immunity may be qualified, and conditional upon good motives and reasonable behavior.

Stricker v. Eastern Off Road Equipment, Inc.

935 F. Supp. 650 · District Court, D. Maryland · Jul 23, 1996

If all such a person does, in effect, is to tabulate data, he is clearly not exempt. … Although the decisions in question must be of significance, they need not be immune from review, revision, or reversal.

Noble v. State

238 Md. App. 153 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jul 25, 2018

The immunity covered by the 2014 legislation clearly covered, in subsection (c), a person experiencing an overdose when another person called for medical assistance. … In the bill enacting CP § 1-210(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

Orgain v. City of Salisbury

521 F. Supp. 2d 465 · District Court, D. Maryland · Jun 25, 2007

Qualified Immunity: Chief Webster and the individual Commissioners of the Board have raised qualified immunity as an affirmative defense. … Ordinarily, a defendant’s entitlement to qualified immunity is decided at the summary judgment stage. Id. (citing Willingham v.

Stearman v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance

381 Md. 436 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · May 14, 2004

Such a contract provision is clearly allowable under the mandatory minimum requirements laid out by the Legislature. … Nonetheless, this Court was clearly aware of Boblitz and could have used its reasoning to invalidate household exclusions, if it thought such a course were necessary or desirable. .

Francis v. Davidson

340 F. Supp. 351 · District Court, D. Maryland · Jan 28, 1972

Such a father is clearly not employed. … Smith establishes that, at least in the absence of congressional authorization for the exclusion clearly evidenced from the Social Security Act or its legislative history, a state eligibility standard that excludes persons

Start, Inc. v. Baltimore County, Md.

295 F. Supp. 2d 569 · District Court, D. Maryland · Dec 17, 2003

While the Fourth Circuit has established that local governments are not immune from liability for actions of their legislative bodies, see Berkley v. … Whether or not the County Council is immune, the “real party in interest” is Baltimore County, see Goldsmith v.

CITY COUNCIL OF BALTIMORE v. AS Abell Co.

218 Md. 273 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Nov 13, 1958

The 4% sales tax is, in form, a tax on the purchasers of advertising, but the evidence establishes the fact that its practical effect is, to all intents and purposes, virtually the same as the gross receipts tax. … It must be afforded a reasonable interpretation, but does not operate to save provisions which clearly would not have been enacted into law except upon the assumption that the entire act was valid.