Case law

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.

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

Schmidt v. Prince George's Hospital

366 Md. 535 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Nov 15, 2001

In the latter case category, the parent does not qualify as “unwilling” and the child is not held liable. … The above-cited cases clearly reflect the principle that the court created doctrine of parent-child immunity is inapplicable where a parent-minor child relationship does not exist and where, consequently, the public policy

State v. Holton

193 Md. App. 322 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jul 1, 2010

According to the State, this is because the Court of Appeals clearly held, in Wicomico County v. … Thus, the State contends, without any further argument or explanation that, at most, if a local legislator is entitled to any immunity in a criminal prosecution, it would be qualified immunity.

Telep v. Stickney

District Court, D. Maryland · Jun 12, 2025

“Qualified immunity protects all governmental officials except those who violate a ‘statutory or constitutional right that was clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct.’” Smith v. Murphy, 634 F. … The Court will therefore turn to the second prong of the qualified immunity analysis.9 “A right is clearly established if it would be clear to a reasonable officer that the alleged conduct is unlawful.”

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.

State, Comptroller of Maryland v. Shipe

221 Md. App. 425 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Feb 3, 2015

As stated above, pursuant to the principle of sovereign immunity, the General Assembly must expressly waive the State’s immunity, in a state statute, in order for the statute of limitations to apply. … . § 13-806 does not waive the State’s immunity and clearly indicates that a tax lien “continues to the date on which the lien is: (1) satisfied; or (2) released by the tax collector. . . .”

Hosmane v. Seley-Radtke

227 Md. App. 11 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Feb 24, 2016

To establish a prima facie case of the common law tort of defamation in Maryland, a plaintiff must establish four elements: (1) that the defendant made a defamatory statement to a third person, (2) that the statement was … The Court of Appeals then went on to adopt a standard of negligence for cases of purely private defamation and enunciated clearly that the quantum of proof by which the plaintiff must establish the fault of the defendant

Dwonzyk v. Baltimore County

328 F. Supp. 2d 572 · District Court, D. Maryland · Jun 29, 2004

In reversing a jury verdict in favor of the plaintiff, the Court held that local legislators are immune from § 1983 suits under absolute legislative immunity. Id. at 52, 56, 118 S.Ct. 966 . … In granting summary judgment to the defendant on the basis of absolute legislative immunity, Judge Smalkin noted that the Fourth Circuit extended such immunity to both state and local lawmakers. Id.

State v. Johnson

108 Md. App. 54 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Feb 1, 1996

Even if the State owed a duty to develop such a plan, was the court clearly erroneous in finding the State Hable for negligence under the Maryland Tort Claims Act? … To the extent that the court’s determination was based on fact, it was clearly erroneous.

Foremanye v. Board of Community College Trustees

956 F. Supp. 574 · District Court, D. Maryland · Mar 20, 1996

In order to establish a violation of the ADA, plaintiff must prove (1) that she has a “disability,” (2) that she was “qualified” for her job, and (3) that defendant’s termination of her employment constituted an unlawful … Thus, even if plaintiff could establish that she was “qualified” for her position, her ADA claim must nonetheless fail because as a matter of law she cannot on this record establish that defendant discriminated against her

Anderson v. Myers

182 F. 223 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Maryland · Oct 28, 1910

Jones, was imposed the duty of registering the qualified voters at a special registration held in the city of Annapolis in the month of June, 1909. … Constitution, by its limitation on the power of the states in the exercise of their right to prescribe the qualifications of voters in their own elections, and by its limitation of the power of the United States over that subject, clearly

(2005)

90 Op. Att'y Gen. 92 · Maryland Attorney General Reports · Jun 27, 2005

Whether CP § 2-104 applies to an NSA police officer depends on whether that officer qualifies as a "federal law enforcement officer." … However, an officer would have no official immunity from liability for such an action.

Foor v. Juvenile Services Administration

78 Md. App. 151 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Feb 3, 1989

extent and in the amount that the State is covered by a program of insurance established by the Treasurer pursuant to § 27 of Article 95.” … The first and third of these elements are clearly, in our view, satisfied. The question arises as to the second.

Smith v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority

133 F. Supp. 2d 395 · District Court, D. Maryland · Feb 5, 2001

The Fourth Circuit has recognized that Section 80 of the WMATA Compact confers immunity to WMATA for governmental functions, but has not addressed what acts qualify as governmental functions under the WMATA Compact. … Consequently, WMATA’s claim of immunity rests upon establishing that the decisions affecting the maintenance and repair of the primary means of ingress and egress from the station qualifies as a judgment based on considerations

Bunch v. Robinson

122 Md. App. 437 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jul 1, 1998

’s establishment of federal judicial power. … On the other hand, the Supremacy Clause clearly allows properly enacted federal law to supersede state law.

Gray v. Kern

124 F. Supp. 3d 600 · District Court, D. Maryland · Aug 21, 2015

Borzym, 379 Md. 249 , 841 A.2d 828, 841 (2004) (“[A] judge must not allow the jury to consider the issue of ‘actual malice’ unless the. evidence could establish;‘actual malice’ clearly and convincingly.”). … status” as Officer Kem that established a duty to protect Mr.

(1998)

83 Op. Att'y Gen. 3 · Maryland Attorney General Reports · Dec 21, 1998

However, in the intervening half-century, the Supreme Court has elaborated and qualified that doctrine. The key elements of the current analysis were established in California Retail Liquor Dealers Assn. v. … Duffy , 479 U.S. 335 (1987), the Court found that while the New York state legislature had clearly adopted a policy of resale price maintenance for the liquor industry, the state itself did not establish prices, review the

Johns Hopkins University v. Board of County Commissioners

185 Md. 614 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Feb 6, 1946

A number of cases are cited by appellees to establish the Maryland rule. It is sufficient to refer to the following cases: In Grand Lodge of Maryland, Knights of Pythias v. … The evidence in the case clearly shows that Hopkins holds the mere naked title to the properties in question.

Rose v. Baltimore County Maryland

District Court, D. Maryland · May 5, 2025

“This rule allows for interlocutory appellate review of a denial of qualified immunity when the appeal is based on a ‘purely legal issue’ such as ‘what law was clearly established,’ but not when the appeal is of a matter … immunity defense on less than all the evidence Defendants offered in support of its qualified immunity argument.