Case law

Brown Jr. v. Watts

District Court, D. Maryland · Nov 7, 2022

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). … If the law at the time of the alleged violation was not “clearly established,” the official will be entitled to qualified immunity because “an official could not reasonably be expected to anticipate subsequent

Linz v. Montgomery Cnty.

Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Nov 1, 2022

The defendant moved to dismiss based on qualified immunity under the Maryland Tort Claims Act (MTCA), Md. Code (1984, 2021 Repl. Vol.) §§ 12-101 through 12-110 of the State Government Article (SG). … The circuit court dismissed the claim against the employee based on qualified immunity, and then dismissed the claim against the State based on limitations.

Musselman v. Phillips

176 F.R.D. 194 · District Court, D. Maryland · Oct 10, 1997

and can be discovered only in very rare and extraordinary circumstances.’ ”). 3 Whether the applicable immunity from discovery is qualified — as for fact work product — or “nearly absolute” — for opinion work product — it … work product protection, regardless of whether that protection is termed an immunity from discovery or a qualified privilege.”).

Short v. State

29 L.R.A. 404 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Feb 27, 1895

A brief reference to the legislation in force when the Constitution of 1776 was adopted will clearly show, we think, the nature *399 and character of poll taxes, the levying of which was declared to be grievous and oppressive … And in addition to the poll taxes thus levied for public purposes, the Act of 1702, chap. 1, declaring the Church of England to be the established church of the colony, also provided that a tax of forty pounds of tobacco

Mills v. Lowndes

26 F. Supp. 792 · District Court, D. Maryland · Mar 1, 1939

If so, the discrimination is clearly unlawful. In Simpson v. … This immunity is a personal privilege which may be waived. Missouri v. Fiske, 290 U.S. 18, 24 , 54 S.Ct. 18 , 78 L.Ed. 145 .

Wright v. Officer Kyle Baxter

District Court, D. Maryland · Feb 26, 2025

he is entitled to qualified immunity. … If the right was not clearly established, the qualified immunity doctrine shields a defendant officer from liability.

Charles Burton Builders, Inc. v. United States

768 F. Supp. 160 · District Court, D. Maryland · Jul 8, 1991

2548, 2552 , 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986): [T]he plain language of Rule 56(c) mandates the entry of summary judgment, after adequate time for discovery and upon motion, against a party who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish … SUBSTANTIVE DISCUSSION The Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1346 , constitutes a waiver of the United States Government’s traditional shield of sovereign immunity.

Burlington Industries v. Exxon Corp.

65 F.R.D. 26 · District Court, D. Maryland · Oct 21, 1974

The court found such communications clearly within the ambit of the attorney-client privilege. … The Work Product Doctrine in Subsequent Litigation The qualified immunity of documents within the work product doctrine does not end when the lawsuit for which the documents were prepared terminates. In Duplan Corp. v.

Horowitz v. Sherman

District Court, D. Maryland · Nov 16, 2020

immunity protects [them] because the rights were not clearly established at the time of the arrest.” … We emphasize, however, that our excessive force holding is clearly established for any future qualified immunity cases involving similar circumstances.”).

Reliable Contracting Co. v. Maryland Underground Facilities Damage Prevention Authority

446 Md. 707 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Mar 28, 2016

Although the statutory one-call system has existed since 1974,12 the Authority was not established until 2010. Chapter 635, Laws of Maryland 2010. … That immunity, of course, is linked to the State’s waiver of its own immunity for the particular tortious action. This is another factor that strongly indicates that the Authority is a State agency.

Lusby v. Lusby

283 Md. 334 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jul 19, 1978

Caudle, 560 S.W.2d 925, 927 (Tex. 1977) (The court “abolish[ed] the rule established in Nickerson [and Matson v. … It must take the law as it has been established by competent legislative authority. It cannot, in any legal sense, make law, but only declare what the law is, as established by competent authority.

Joaquim v. Buzzuro

District Court, D. Maryland · Aug 26, 2024

With respect to the second prong of the qualified immunity analysis, a right is clearly established if the contours of the right “are sufficiently clear that ‘a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing … Having the discretion to address either of the qualified immunity prongs first, the Court concludes that Plaintiff’s claim involves a clearly established right.

Joaquim v. Buzzuro

District Court, D. Maryland · Aug 23, 2024

With respect to the second prong of the qualified immunity analysis, a right is clearly established if the contours of the right “are sufficiently clear that ‘a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing … Having the discretion to address either of the qualified immunity prongs first, the Court concludes that Plaintiff’s claim involves a clearly established right.

(2001)

86 Op. Att'y Gen. 253 · Maryland Attorney General Reports · Nov 28, 2001

However, even if a board's rejection of an agreement restricted competition, that decision may be immune from attack under the antitrust laws in accordance with the state action immunity doctrine. See Parker v. … To enjoy such immunity, the challenged action must be based on a clearly articulated and affirmatively expressed state policy. 9 See California Retail Liquor Dealers Ass'n v. Midcal Aluminum, Inc., 445 U.S. 97 (1980).

Presley v. Healy Tibbits Construction Co.

646 F. Supp. 203 · District Court, D. Maryland · Oct 22, 1986

Inc., 541 F.2d 427 (4th Cir.1976), the Fourth Circuit established a three-part test for determining the seamen status question: To qualify as a ‘member of the crew’ under the Jones Act, one must be more or less permanently … There is no question but that Section 905(b) could have been more sensibly and clearly written.

Wood v. Abell

268 Md. 214 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Feb 13, 1973

Clearly, no decision was reached that the Abells would be employed in the future or that the j obs would be continuous. … Appellants’ argument is merely attenuated by the well-established rule, applicable here, that Francis is presumed to have exercised due care for his own safety, Bratton v.

Kuypers v. Comptroller of the Treasury of Maryland

173 F. Supp. 2d 393 · District Court, D. Maryland · Apr 30, 2001

It is well established that a non-consenting state is immune from a suit *396 brought in a federal court by its own citizens. Puerto Rico Aqueduct and Sewer Auth. v. … Clearly, the Eleventh Amendment takes precedence over an action purportedly filed under 46 U.S.C. § 11108 .

American Casualty Co. v. Community Savings & Loan, Inc.

635 F. Supp. 539 · District Court, D. Maryland · Apr 15, 1986

MDIF’s Director is granted qualified immunity. Id. Section 9, ch. 6. Any net earnings of MDIF are to be “accumulated for the benefit of the state.” Md.Fin.Inst.Code Ann. § 10-112(c) (Supp.1985). … Indeed, the Court would have difficulty of thinking of any circumstances that could more clearly compel the application of the doctrine. Transcript of Opinion at 4-5.

Bolick v. BD. OF ED. OF CHARLES CTY.

256 Md. 180 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Dec 18, 1969

Boards of education in this State do not per se enjoy governmental immunity from suit, Code (1957) Article 77, Section 38. … However, it has been conclusively established that boards of education are immune from liability in tort actions, since the legislature has given them no power to raise money for the purpose of paying damages, nor to pay

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 · Jan 10, 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.