Case law

Pevia v. Moyer

District Court, D. Maryland · May 30, 2023

conduct was clearly established at the time.’” … Qualified immunity turns on the “objective reasonableness of an official’s conduct, as measured by reference to clearly established law.” Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 (1982).

Kee v. State Highway Administration

313 Md. 445 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Aug 26, 1988

Consequently, the plaintiffs assert, the State’s self-insurance program, established in 1985, covers the accident, and therefore the action is not barred by sovereign immunity. … The 1982-1983 budget act clearly authorized purchase of insurance coverage only for §§ 5-403(a)(3) and (4).

Williams v. Williams

427 F. Supp. 557 · District Court, D. Maryland · Dec 27, 1976

Some tests are well established. … . * * * Section 659 in no way purports to establish a federal right to garnishment.” In West v.

Gables Constr., Inc. v. Red Coats, Inc.

241 Md. App. 1 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · May 10, 2019

evidence establishing that GCI breached the standard of care. … In some cases, the contract may clearly express an intended third party beneficiary, see Schlicht v.

Rivera v. Prince George's County Health Department

102 Md. App. 456 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Dec 2, 1994

The 1981 version of the Act contained a limited waiver of the State’s sovereign immunity in certain tort actions to the extent of coverage by a program of insurance established by the State Treasurer. … is a clearly defined specific duty within the general duty of due care....

Kitt v. State

2 Md. App. 306 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Nov 2, 1967

Craft further testified that he was promised immunity from prosecution by the State in return for his testimony. … In any event, the proposed agreement between Craft and the State was clearly established in open court by Craft’s testimony. Judgment affirmed.

Akinola

District Court, D. Maryland · Mar 24, 2026

The defendant asserting the qualified immunity defense bears the burden of proof on whether the right at issue was clearly established. Stanton v. … To be entitled to qualified immunity, Officer Lavin must prove that the rights at issue were not clearly established at the time. Officer Lavin has not met his burden.

Maryland Attorney General Opinion 99OAG133

Maryland Attorney General Reports · Aug 25, 2014

The other two positions are established under county law: the Montgomery and Prince George’s County codes. … App. 670, 679 (1999) (holding that two positions established by the Town Code of Bel Air were “created by law”).

Montrose Christian School Corp. v. Walsh

363 Md. 565 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Apr 12, 2001

The court did hold that the school was entitled to charitable immunity but that such immunity did not extend to Scheck. … Section 27-19 of the Montgomery County *584 Code, together with Art. 49B, § 42, of the Maryland Code, clearly abrogate any charitable immunity that might otherwise have existed in cases like the present ones. IV.

Roosevelt v. Corapcioglu

415 Md. 434 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Aug 25, 2010

The Master erred and was otherwise clearly erroneous when he concluded that the Qualified Domestic Relations Order requested was not available. … A review of federal bankruptcy case law clearly establishes that child support *440 includes costs and fees incurred enforcing a child custody order. Silverman v.

Hegna v. Islamic Republic of Iran

287 F. Supp. 2d 608 · District Court, D. Maryland · Aug 25, 2003

The conventions recognize that diplomatic properties belong to the state that established them, not to the government that controls the state. … If TRIA does not subject the properties to attachment, they are otherwise exempt under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, see 28 U.S.C. § 1609 ; Flatow v.

Pullium v. Ceresini

221 F. Supp. 2d 600 · District Court, D. Maryland · Mar 5, 2002

Defendants also argue that, even if the officer’s(s’) conduct violated Plaintiffs constitutional rights, Officer Ceresini is entitled to qualified immunity. … The parties seem to agree that the establishment of a special relationship also deprives the officer of the benefits of any immunities. See Williams v.

McDonald v. LG Electronics USA, Inc.

219 F. Supp. 3d 533 · District Court, D. Maryland · Nov 10, 2016

Thus, Amazon asserts, because the Complaint fails to establish the requisite connection between Amazon and plaintiffs injuries, plaintiffs claims must be dismissed. Id. at 21-22 (citing authority). … Here, Amazon’s role as the “platform” for the third-party sales does not qualify it as a merchant or a seller under Maryland’s UCC. Accordingly, plaintiffs breach of implied warranty claim against Amazon also must fail.

Marylanders for Fair Representation, Inc. v. Schaefer

144 F.R.D. 292 · District Court, D. Maryland · Oct 14, 1992

When viewed in this light, the actions of the Governor seem clearly to fall within the purview of “legitimate legislative activity.” … Once the Governor’s immunity has been established, the question then becomes whether the members of the Committee should derive complete immunity from the Governor, or whether they are only entitled to some lesser form of

May. & City Cncl. Of Baltimore v. Varghese

Court of Appeals of Maryland · Dec 23, 2025

In a demand letter to the City, the man asserted that the accident occurred while he was attempting to 1 The City of Baltimore Development Corporation “was clearly established, and is maintained, as an … Today’s holding should be read within those established limits.

Vialet

District Court, D. Maryland · Mar 11, 2026

Second, Grooms and Levy are entitled to qualified immunity. … conduct was clearly established at the time.’”

Baltimore City Board of School Commissioners v. Koba Institute, Inc.

194 Md. App. 400 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Sep 13, 2010

Although not conceding these items in this Court, this admission in the circuit court is clearly a waiver of limitations as to the June-July invoiced amounts. … Subsection (b) establishes a base grant amount for each jurisdiction and subsection (c) sets forth a formula for increasing the grant.

Myers v. Town of Elkton, Maryland

District Court, D. Maryland · Aug 16, 2024

established to vitiate the Officer Defendants’ qualified immunity? … established law for purposes of adjudging entitlement to qualified immunity’”) (quoting Hogan v.

Ihnken v. Gardner

927 F. Supp. 2d 227 · District Court, D. Maryland · Feb 27, 2013

Thus, if the shutdown was a deprivation of Ihnken’s constitutional rights, any county official involved in the shutdown may be liable, unless they are entitled to qualified immunity. Id. at 783 . … Furthermore, although the individual defendants argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity on this and all of Ihnken’s § 1983 claims, because the record is not developed enough to determine whether a constitutional

Meade

District Court, D. Maryland · Feb 2, 2026

Even if his use of force was not reasonable as a matter of law, Defendant urges he is nonetheless entitled to qualified immunity because no caselaw clearly established his actions violated Decedent Singleton’s rights based … “The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials ‘from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable