Case law

C & K LORD, INC. v. Carter

74 Md. App. 68 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Feb 4, 1988

Once the court concluded that the settling defendants were immune from liability under the Act, they were likewise immune from liability for contribution or indemnity. American Radiator & Standard Sanitary Corp. v. … The trial judge’s instruction clearly met this standard. *93 VIII.

Alabaugh v. Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Company

125 F. Supp. 401 · District Court, D. Maryland · Oct 29, 1954

The Act clearly contemplates that obligations of continued union membership as above defined may be imposed. … The administrative remedy of the National Railroad Adjustment Board was not established until the 1934 amendment to the Act. The case of Virginian Railway Co. v.

Harden v. Mass Transit Administration

277 Md. 399 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Apr 9, 1976

It said it did not reach the issue of sovereign immunity. … ’mean the Mass Transit Administrator whose office is established by Article 41, § 207D, of this Code.” 8 .

Westbrook v. Wilson

896 F. Supp. 504 · District Court, D. Maryland · May 30, 1995

Although not necessary to the disposition of the case, the Court notes that, in any event, the defendant is entitled to qualified immunity from money damage liability, because his conduct did not violate any established constitutional

State v. Roll and Scholl

267 Md. 714 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jan 17, 1973

When our forefathers “ordained and established” the Constitution of the United States, one of their specified purposes was “to establish justice.” … THE RESPONDENT: Not clearly. Would you please repeat that?

In re KBR, Inc.

925 F. Supp. 2d 752 · District Court, D. Maryland · Feb 27, 2013

The en banc majority concluded that it lacked jurisdiction because combatant activities-based preemption is not an immunity but a defense, and derivative sovereign immunity is a qualified immunity that requires government … Notably, the finding of the District Court upheld in Velasco was not based on discovery, but rather upon “extensive affidavits and supporting documents” which established a prima facie case of immunity which was not overcome

Peed v. Cleland

516 F. Supp. 469 · District Court, D. Maryland · Jun 3, 1981

There is no justification in the opinion of both the House and Senate committees for establishing income limitations in the law so as to provide a test for need for qualifying for pension, and at the same time permitting … beneficiaries to create their own need so as to qualify for the benefit.”

Penhollow v. BD. OF COMMISSIONERS CECIL COUNTY

116 Md. App. 265 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jun 30, 1997

Section 5[-]321(b)(l) [of the Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article] grants immunity of the parties on the mere negligence basis and it’s clear under the law that you’ve got to allege facts clearly which show the official … It held that section 5—321(b)(1) of the Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article “grants immunity [to] the parties on the mere negligence basis and it’s clear under the law that you’ve got to allege facts clearly which show

Lewis v. Board of Education of Talbot County

262 F. Supp. 2d 608 · District Court, D. Maryland · May 7, 2003

of sovereign immunity. … Each new school established by the Talbot County Board becomes a “part of the State program of public education.” Id. at § 4-109.

Stewart v. State

1 Md. App. 309 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · May 19, 1967

It was relevant to the issue and tended to establish it. Hopkins v. State, 193 Md. 489 (1949). … The findings of the trial judge will not be disturbed unless clearly erroneous. Maryland Rule 1086; Tucker v. State, 244 Md. 488 (1966).

Q C Corp. v. Maryland Port Administration

68 Md. App. 181 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Nov 10, 1986

We hold, therefore, that the post-1976 legislative actions we have discussed were not intended to narrow the waiver of sovereign immunity in contract cases as established by Ch. 450, Acts of 1976: Our holding is fully confirmed … has already been waived with respect to non-procurement contracts” and that "if House Bill 1684 is enacted, it would clearly prevent the State from asserting sovereign immunity with respect to contracts entered into prior

Mobley v. Mallow

District Court, D. Maryland · Nov 21, 2019

They also raise the affirmative defenses of qualified immunity, arguing that their conduct did not violate any clearly established constitutional right of which a reasonable public official should have known. … However, “[b]Jecause an official ‘who performs an act clearly established to be beyond the scope of his discretionary authority is not entitled to claim qualified immunity,’ the The defense of qualified immunity does

Surratt v. Prince George's County

320 Md. 439 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Sep 4, 1990

any county waiving this defense to establish an insurance program. … Clearly, an “insurance program” may encompass both methods of protection.

(2006)

91 Op. Att'y Gen. 164 · Maryland Attorney General Reports · Sep 1, 2006

While traditional public schools are immune from local zoning, they are not free of regulation. … Thus, a local government with zoning authority may require that the owner of the property obtain a special exception or qualify as a conditional use in certain zoning districts. 11 In summary, a local government may regulate

Thompson v. State

16 Md. App. 560 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jan 8, 1973

, a fortiori, qualify in a probable cause setting. … The appellant agrees that the credibility of this primary informant is established beyond dispute.

Lowery v. Smithsburg Emergency Medical Service

173 Md. App. 662 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Apr 5, 2007

Once established by the trial court, “qualified or conditional privileges in defamation cases are forfeited only upon a showing of actual malice; that is, a defendant who makes statements with knowledge of their falsity or … “Likewise, a judge must not allow the jury to consider the issue of ‘actual malice’ unless the evidence could establish ‘actual malice’ clearly and convincingly.” Id. (emphasis in original).

Booth v. State of Md.

940 F. Supp. 849 · District Court, D. Maryland · Oct 3, 1996

If not, the doctrine that a State may waive its Eleventh Amendment immunity would seem to do so. … thereby to have waived its immunity,” Parden v.

Ryan v. United States

304 F. Supp. 2d 678 · District Court, D. Maryland · May 12, 2003

Because this action does not sound in admiralty, however, Ryan must establish a jurisdictional basis for bringing suit against the government that also establishes a waiver of the government’s sovereign immunity. … Case law has clearly established that “[t]he decision to hire an independent contractor to render services for the United States is precisely the type of decision that the exception is designed to shield from liability because

Md.-Nat'l Cap. P. & P. Comm'n v. Crawford

59 Md. App. 276 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jun 6, 1984

(b) the only reason why [Crawford] was not granted a transfer to which she was entitled under the rules and regulations and for which she was clearly the best qualified applicant, was that she was white. … The Commission's concurrence procedure reflects this concept by allowing a "clearly more qualified" non-minority candidate an equal opportunity for each available employment position.

Johnson v. State

18 Md. App. 571 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Aug 10, 1973

The rule seems so well established that an extended discussion of the cases is not warranted. See 50 C.J.S., Juries, § 249, 47 Am. Jur., *574 Jury, § 222. … Now, I have discussed with you the question of immunity, is that correct? A. Yes, sir. Q.