Case law

Hicks v. Anne Arundel County

District Court, D. Maryland · Oct 14, 2021

Pamer is entitled to qualified immunity, the Court must ask “(1) whether the facts illustrate that the official violated the plaintiff’s constitutional right; and (2) whether the right was clearly established law at the … In the context of a Franks violation, the second prong of a qualified immunity inquiry— whether the constitutional right at issue is clearly established—is straightforward.

Fitzgerald v. Montgomery County Board of Education

25 Md. App. 709 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · May 1, 1975

Henkels & McCoy, Inc. supra, effectively lays to rest any suggestion that the Maryland rule is qualified. … The defense of partial sovereign immunity was not raised by appellee. See Maryland Rule 323 b.

Bell Atlantic-Maryland, Inc. v. Maryland Stadium Authority

113 Md. App. 640 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Feb 5, 1997

Appellant asserts that there is a distinction between the sovereign immunity of a state that bars suits unless immunity is waived and the limited immunity of a municipality that bars certain suits in the exercise of its governmental … and was not established as a profit-making facility.

Anderson v. Hammerman

Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Nov 6, 2024

First, they argue, “the General Assembly’s incorporation of the FDCPA into the MCDCA is clearly inconsistent with litigation privilege.” … It concluded that the litigation privilege does not provide immunity from claims for malicious prosecution, principally because if it did so it “would eviscerate [that] long-established cause of action.”

Montgomery County v. Schooley

97 Md. App. 107 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jul 8, 1993

The problem is a very practical *121 one, but one that raises quite clearly the underlying Constitutional concern. … This the doctrine of legislative immunity will not allow.”

Dolan v. Kent Research & Manufacturing Co.

63 Md. App. 55 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · May 9, 1985

Whether appellant failed to establish certain elements of his claim and, therefore, entitled appellee to judgment as a matter of law. 2. … As a result of this conclusion, we need not address appellee’s assertion that appellant failed to establish the elements of his claim.

Lehan v. Wilson

District Court, D. Maryland · Apr 30, 2025

“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 … “A right need not be recognized bya court ina specific factual context before such right may be considered ‘clearly established’ for purposes of qualified immunity.” id. (citations omitted).

(1999)

84 Op. Att'y Gen. 105 · Maryland Attorney General Reports · Aug 10, 1999

To the extent that an officer is sued in an individual capacity under § 1983 by a person against whom the officer used force, the officer may assert qualified immunity as a defense. 16 An inquiry into a qualified immunity … defense follows the objective reasonableness test: if the force employed was reasonable and necessary, there is no constitutional violation and the officer is entitled to qualified immunity.

Ostrzenski v. Seigel

3 F. Supp. 2d 648 · District Court, D. Maryland · Apr 9, 1998

It is well established that judges and prosecutors are absolutely immune as individuals from liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 arising out of the exercise of their official functions. Imbler v. … Plaintiff argues that because Defendant actually went and gathered information regarding Plaintiffs competence, Defendant is more like a prosecutor exercising investigatory powers and thus enjoys only qualified immunity.

Miller v. Foor

District Court, D. Maryland · Jun 13, 2024

The qualified immunity inquiry is two-fold. … A right is clearly established for qualified immunity purposes if it is “clear that ‘a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates that right.’” Carroll v.

Rite Aid Corp. v. Hagley

374 Md. 665 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · May 13, 2003

Consequently, holding that the conduct supporting the allegations of defamation and invasion of privacy exceeded the qualified immunity of the statutes, it vacated the judgment as to those counts and remanded the case to … Simply put, if good faith immunity can be overcome by establishing negligence, then good faith immunity is a meaningless concept as one would have to be free from negligence, and thus not liable in any event, to also avail

Mesmer v. Maryland Automobile Insurance Fund

353 Md. 241 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Mar 11, 1999

Three days later MAIF informed Hyman that the Chevrolet did not qualify as an insured vehicle under the terms of the policy and that the policy was being voided ab initio. … , then” MAIF does not enjoy sovereign immunity.

Williams v. Romarm S.A.

116 F. Supp. 3d 631 · District Court, D. Maryland · Jul 20, 2015

foreign state” with respect to which the foreign state is not entitled to immunity. … Although’ foreign states are generally immune from suit, the FSIA contains exceptions to that immunity in cases in which the action is based upon “a commercial activity carried on in the United States by the foreign state

Porter v. Shusko

District Court, D. Maryland · Aug 29, 2025

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 person would have … Qualified immunity generally entails a two-part inquiry: first, whether a constitutional violation has occurred, and second, whether that violation was of a “clearly established constitutional right.” E.g., Quinn v.

Szot v. Allstate Insurance

161 F. Supp. 2d 596 · District Court, D. Maryland · Aug 24, 2001

Yet, in the context of a work-related defamation claim, by statute 4 and common law, “[e]ommunications arising out of the employer-employee relationship ‘clearly enjoy a qualified privilege.’ ” Gohari v. … Section 5-423 of the Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article of the Maryland Code provides qualified immunity to employers for communications made to prospective employers or governmental entities regarding an employee’s

Jordan v. Davis

District Court, D. Maryland · Mar 13, 2023

was clearly established at the time.’” … Conversely, an official is not entitled to qualified immunity if he deprived an individual of a constitutional right and that right was clearly established at the time of the violation. Pearson, 555 U.S. at 231.

Spratlin v. Montgomery County, Md.

772 F. Supp. 1545 · District Court, D. Maryland · Aug 14, 1990

the law regarding emergency psychiatric evaluations is not clearly established. … While the Supreme Court has held that a defendant is entitled to qualified immunity if the pertinent law is not clearly established and if a police officer would not have known that his conduct violated a plaintiff’s constitutional

Finnegan v. Department of Public Safety & Correctional Services

184 F. Supp. 2d 457 · District Court, D. Maryland · Feb 6, 2002

To proceed on a claim of disparate treatment under Title VII, a plaintiff must establish a prima facie case consisting of four elements: (1) the employee is a member of a protected class; (2) the employee was qualified for … Plaintiff also qualified for her position and her performance was satisfactory. Plaintiff has not sufficiently alleged facts that could establish the third element of a prima facie case.

Clarke v. State ex rel. Darnall

8 G. & J. 111 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Dec 15, 1836

established by the adduction of the bond, or an office copy thereof, unless indeed the bond had been lost, or the record thereof was destroyed or lost, when proof of an inferior character might perhaps be admissible. … Hall, under the circumstances, would be clearly incompetent to prove such guardianship. All this evidence offered on the part of the defendant, was inadmissible upon another ground.

Anderson v. Hammerman

Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Nov 6, 2024

First, they argue, “the General Assembly’s incorporation of the FDCPA into the MCDCA is clearly inconsistent with litigation privilege.” … It concluded that the litigation privilege does not provide immunity from claims for malicious prosecution, principally because if it did so it “would eviscerate [that] long-established cause of action.”