Case law

Achimbi v. Owoeye

District Court, D. Maryland · Nov 13, 2024

Having failed to establish entitlement to such a defense, the motion fails. Further, the qualified immunity defense is also without merit. … If the right was not clearly established, the qualified immunity doctrine shields a defendant officer from liability.

Long v. Hawken

114 Md. 234 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jan 10, 1911

There is nothing, we think, in the facts of this case, that could take it out of the general rule, as established by the decisions cited by us, or would deny to the appellee the immunity and exemption from service of process … In conclusion, we hold, that the appellee, under the facts of this case, was clearly entitled to the immunity and privilege claimed, both as a witness and a defendant suitor, while attending the sessions of the Circuit Court

CCI Entertainment, LLC v. State

215 Md. App. 359 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Dec 18, 2013

The State contends that the circuit court’s order compelling the General Assembly to disclose documents for in camera review violated “the State’s sovereign immunity, the speech and debate clause, and the absolute legislative … These observations, alone, establish a rational basis for § 3’s use of February 28, 2008.

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.

Shultz v. Smith

264 F. Supp. 2d 278 · District Court, D. Maryland · Mar 7, 2003

In fight of the fact that the Supreme Court left the issue open in Atwater , defendants clearly have a defense of qualified immunity against plaintiff’s constitutional claim. … Accordingly, his claim clearly fails under the rule that even if a plaintiff alleges a technical violation of his rights, he may not recover if he suffered no more than de minimis injury. See Robles v.

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

Green v. N.B.S., Inc.

180 Md. App. 639 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jul 2, 2008

Cline, 384 Md. 245 , 863 A.2d 297 (2004), the Court was called upon to decide whether “the Maryland Tort Claims Act grants qualified immunity to state personnel for tortious ads or omissions, within the scope of the state … The Lee Court said: While this Court has not, until today, directly decided whether intentional torts and constitutional torts are covered by the Maryland Tort Claims Act, thereby granting state personnel qualified immunity

Bozman v. Bozman

376 Md. 461 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Aug 12, 2003

“On the other hand, it is sometimes advisable to correct a decision or decisions wrongly made in the first instance, if it is found that the decision is clearly wrong and contrary to other established principles.” … “Did the Court of Special Appeals err in establishing as the standard for defining 'outrageous' conduct the standard established in Harris v.

Richardson v. McGriff

361 Md. 437 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Nov 15, 2000

Creighton addressed to qualified immunity for a Fourth Amendment violation. … Because of these considerations, immunity is granted to officers who act reasonably, albeit mistakenly, in light of clearly established law and the information they possessed without the benefit of hindsight, (citations omitted

Montgomery v. Bradshaw

District Court, D. Maryland · Jul 24, 2024

“Qualified immunity protects government officials from civil damages in a § 1983 action insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would … To overcome a claim of qualified immunity from a § 1983 claim, a plaintiff must show that (1) the government official violated a federally protected right of the plaintiff; and (2) that right was clearly established at

Alexander v. Prince George's County, Md.

901 F. Supp. 986 · District Court, D. Maryland · Oct 11, 1995

Of course, qualified immunity protects government officials “performing discretionary functions ... from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … Assuming arguendo that the Plan is unconstitutional, the Court finds that these Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity in this ease.

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

Everette v. Mitchem

146 F. Supp. 3d 720 · District Court, D. Maryland · Nov 20, 2015

River-bend was established by the Fort Belknap Indian Community’s government under tribal law, and it operates pursuant to tribal law. (Deck of Michelle Fox ¶ 6, Riverbend Mot. Dismiss. … As for the fourth factor, both tribes clearly intended for the lending companies to share in the tribes’ sovereign immunity.

A. S. Abell Co. v. Kirby

227 Md. 267 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jan 19, 1962

The Courts and the writers have not agreed as to whether fair comment is a qualified privilege (those who say it is rely largely on the fact that actual malice, as in the case of concededly qualified privileges, destroys … In so far as the difference *273 of view has any practical significance at all, the former seems the proper one since proof of actual malice will defeat the immunity which is thus a defeasible or ‘qualified’ one.”

Baltimore Gas & Electric Co. v. United States

133 F. Supp. 2d 721 · District Court, D. Maryland · Mar 12, 2001

Clearly, then, BG & E qualifies as an interested party under this definition. … As a party alleging injury by the Army's action in issuing a final Solicitation, BG & E clearly also qualifies to bring suit under this broader standard. Thus, I conclude BG & E is an "interested party” under ADRA. 8 .

Jackson v. Dackman Co.

181 Md. App. 546 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Sep 10, 2008

Appellees did not fully comply with the Statute and, thus, are not entitled to qualified immunity. … Appellants are clearly mistaken, as this Court has previously held “that violations of the Consumer Protection Act are in the nature of a tort action.” MarryCLE, *584 LLC v.

Magruder v. Swann

25 Md. 173 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jun 28, 1866

Although it was said in that case that the Governor bears the same relation to the State that the President does to the United States, and in the discharge of his political duties is entitled to the same immunities, privileges … Owings cannot be disregarded, being the mode of filling the vacancy, clearly and explicitly provided.

Catonsville Nursing Home, Inc. v. Loveman

349 Md. 560 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · May 15, 1998

[In order to qualify *565 for that license, Inglenook was issued its own certificate of need.] In 1987, the Center was acquired by Evergreen Health Group, Inc. … 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.

Frankel v. Board of Regents

361 Md. 298 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Nov 6, 2000

Under § 13-1104(a), a claimant has three years from the date of payment to file “a claim for refund under this article ...,” and Jeremy clearly filed his claim and brought this action within that time. … Although the Board’s waiver of governmental immunity for actions filed in tort may be limited “to the extent of any applicable liability insurance,” the waiver of immunity for other actions is not so limited.

Comptroller of the Treasury v. World Inns, Inc.

310 Md. 154 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jul 28, 1987

In New Mexico , the Court was faced with the question of whether independent contractors working for the federal government qualified for immunity from state taxation. … Nevertheless, the Court held that tax immunity was inappropriate.