Case law

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.

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

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 .

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.

TFWS, Inc. v. Schaefer

183 F. Supp. 2d 789 · District Court, D. Maryland · Feb 4, 2002

The State’s Avotved Interest and the Twenty-first Amendment The State’s avowed goal of promoting temperance clearly relates to the interests generally protected by the Twenty-first Amendment. See, e.g., North Dakota v. … Overstreet qualifies as an expert economist in this case.

Hebron Savings Bank v. City of Salisbury

259 Md. 294 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Oct 19, 1970

So much of the plaintiff’s property, therefore, as is covered by the water, would seem to be clearly taken within the meaning of the constitutional prohibition.” … It is our view that Hebron must be given an opportunity to show the court below that the property demol *305 ished had value to it and was not a nuisance when it was demolished, and that if it can establish the amount of

Boyd v. Hickman

114 Md. App. 108 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Feb 21, 1997

Are the Defendants entitled to a qualified immunity defense for their violations of Maryland Constitutional Law? II. … immunity with regard to the constitutional claims.

Paulone v. City of Frederick

787 F. Supp. 2d 360 · District Court, D. Maryland · May 3, 2011

They had notice of the potential risk of their decision, and clearly refused the accommodation knowingly.” Proctor, 32 F.Supp.2d at 829 (quoting Bartlett). … Use of qualified oral or sign language interpreters.

Maryland Community Health System, LLP v. Glendening

115 F. Supp. 2d 599 · District Court, D. Maryland · Oct 4, 2000

The defendants also move for summary judgment based on Eleventh-Amendment immunity. I. … Maryland’s payment system clearly harms Priority Partners.

Committee for the Consideration of the Jones Falls Sewage System v. Train

387 F. Supp. 526 · District Court, D. Maryland · Jan 15, 1975

The Court there held that the other defendants were entitled to the immunity of 33 U.S.C. § 1342 (k). This immunity would extend to enforcement actions by the Administrator under section 1319. … However, in several of these sections this mandatory language is qualified.

Cannady v. Petticolas

District Court, D. Maryland · Jul 8, 2021

As an initial matter, “[t]o determine whether a right was clearly established, the court first must define the right at issue,” because “[a] right is clearly established only if its contours are Governor Hogan also suggests … Here, Plaintiff's allegations fail to show that Governor Hogan violated “clearly established” law, particularly because “courts are not to define clearly established law at a high level of generality.” Wilson v.

Parler & Wobber v. Miles & Stockbridge, P.C.

359 Md. 671 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jul 25, 2000

The defendants raised the affirmative defense of qualified immunity from suit on the grounds they acted in good faith and on advice of their legal counsel. Hearn , at 577. … Protopapas, 314 Md. 340, 353 , 550 A.2d 947, 954 (1988)(dis-cussing immunities granted over the years such as interspousal immunity, workers’ compensation immunity, and parent- *702 child immunity).

Vancamp v. Baltimore County Maryland

District Court, D. Maryland · Jul 29, 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.’” … can violate clearly established law even under ‘novel factual circumstances.’”

Freilich v. Board of Directors of Upper Chesapeake Health, Inc.

142 F. Supp. 2d 679 · District Court, D. Maryland · May 14, 2001

She further argues in Count III that the HCQIA’s qualified immunity for medical peer review violates the Tenth Amendment of the United States Constitution and Article Three of the Maryland Constitution by invading areas of … The statute requires hospitals to establish a credentialing process for physicians and directs that regulations be promulgated to establish standards for that process.

Helinski v. Rosenberg

90 Md. App. 158 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jan 29, 1992

Shapiro’s testimony, which, if accepted, would have established on a prima facie basis Rosenberg’s negligence in repeating the defamatory remarks. … Helinski also must establish that Rosenberg’s statements damaged him.

Patterson v. Ramsey

413 F. Supp. 523 · District Court, D. Maryland · Mar 29, 1976

by the defense of qualified immunity. … There was some question however, as to the scope of the qualified immunity. Recently in Wood v.

Bagheri v. Montgomery County

180 Md. App. 93 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · May 6, 2008

ANALYSIS It is established Maryland common law that [a] “local governmental entity is liable for its torts if the tortious conduct occurs while the entity is acting in a private or proprietary capacity, but, unless its immunity … Clearly, the City would have been liable to suit if its negligent maintenance of the driveway had led to the injury of the truck drivers who used it to pick up trash and *100 garbage from the rear of the school, of the operators

Anderson v. Anderson

285 Md. 515 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jul 23, 1979

The court ruled that the support payments owed by Edgar do not constitute “alimony” under Maryland law, but that they do qualify as “alimony” under the federal definition of that term in 42 U.S.C. § 662 (c) (1977) and thus … Section 1677 of Title 15 of the United States Code establishes a rule for construction of § 1673 along with state laws limiting garnishment: § 1677.

Abortion Statutory Interpretation –Whether Section 20-208 of the Health-General Article Prohibits Nurse Practitioners, Certified Nurse Midwives, and Physician Assistants from Providing Medication Abortions – Whether the Same Statute Prohibits Physician Assistants from Performing Surgical Abortions

Maryland Attorney General Reports · Sep 23, 2020

thus it may provide immunity only in cases where the physician could not be found liable in any event. … If the words of the statute, read in context, are both “unambiguous and clearly consistent with the statute’s apparent purpose,” our inquiry usually ends there. Id.

Smith v. Gross

319 Md. 138 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Apr 9, 1990

The relevant and material facts set out in the Complaint here were sufficient to establish, if proved, that Virginia Lee Smith was the natural mother of the child, that she was the personal representative of his estate, that … Clearly, he had not completely abandoned the parental relationship; the child was with him at the time of the accident.