Case law

Scarbrough v. Transplant Resource Ctr.

Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Aug 29, 2019

the Secretary to be reimbursed for the procurement of kidneys; (4) meet the requirements of federal law and have been certified by the Secretary within the prior four years “as meeting the performance standards to be a qualified … The deposition excerpts cited by appellants do not show bad faith, but merely establish the failed attempt to notify the Baylor College of Medicine about the donation. Seamans, 934 S.W.2d at 396.

Brooks v. Jenkins

220 Md. App. 444 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Dec 16, 2014

Vol.), § 12- 104(b) of the State Government Article (“SG”); see also CJ § 5-522(a) (establishing between the two sections the State’s immunity from suit for a state employee who has acted within the scope of employment … No cases we have found, however, offer any deeper insight on what range of motives might qualify as being “like” fraud or malice.

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

Rios v. Montgomery County

157 Md. App. 462 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jul 2, 2004

As the Supreme Court has instructed, it is clearly the prerogative of Congress, not the judiciary, to reform the terms and scope of waiver of sovereign immunity beyond that which Congress intended. … Nevertheless, the General Assembly has the power to establish the terms under which it will permit a waiver of immunity, and was not required to exempt minors from the notice provision.

COMMITTEE FOR CONSID. OF JONES FALLS SEW. SYS. 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.

Shriver v. Carlin & Fulton Co.

155 Md. 51 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Apr 5, 1928

In the latter case, Lord Eldon decided, in conformity with the principle established by Solly v. … And that view is very clearly expressed in a note in 58 L. R.

State v. Meade

101 Md. App. 512 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Sep 1, 1994

For that same reason, we shall conclude that Officer Bewley has no statutory immunity and that he also enjoys no common law immunity. … The 1989 legislation, as enacted, was clearly effective to reinstitute the State’s sovereign immunity for conduct committed by Baltimore City police officers, among others.

Sallie v. Tax Sale Investors, Inc.

998 F. Supp. 612 · District Court, D. Maryland · Mar 19, 1998

As to the latter contention, that TSI is entitled to a “qualified, good faith immunity,” this admixture by TSI of the distinct qualified immunity enjoyed by a governmental actor sued in his or her individual capacity, and … immunity.

Harford County v. Town of Bel Air

348 Md. 363 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jan 14, 1998

But I do find that the two statutes establishing the respective fees are similar except that the present tipping fee exempts recycling. … The case at bar clearly does not present the type of situation in which either the frustration of purpose doctrine or the impossibility of performance doctrine applies. D.

Kennedy Temporaries v. Comptroller of Treasury

57 Md. App. 22 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jan 4, 1984

It also found, however, that Kennedy’s claim for damages was “barred by the doctrine of sovereign immunity.” … Precis We think that the Comptroller’s third argument is valid; Kennedy does not qualify as a “responsive” bidder, and thus has no legal status to challenge the award to Bay Services.

Donohue v. Maryland Casualty Company

248 F. Supp. 588 · District Court, D. Maryland · Dec 21, 1965

from this type of suit established by Art. 101, §§ 15 and 36. … also be immune when performing a duty imposed on the employer at common law, just as the employer is immune when performing either class of duties.

(2004)

89 Op. Att'y Gen. 53 · Maryland Attorney General Reports · Mar 18, 2004

While the Fire Department is not subject to the licensing requirements for ambulance services, 7 it is clearly "otherwise authorized" to provide those services. … This general rule of construction, which is derived from the doctrine of sovereign immunity, does not apply when the statute manifests a legislative intention to cover governmental entities, or there is no impairment of sovereign

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.

Walters Art Gallery v. Walters Workers Un.

Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jul 29, 2025

The IRS applies different criteria when determining whether an entity qualifies as a governmental instrumentality for tax purposes. … Immunity is a major point of distinction from Moberly. 276 Md. at 223.

Pan American Health Organization v. Montgomery County

338 Md. 214 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · May 11, 1995

Art. 28, § 7-103. 1 The Regional District Act establishes two mechanisms for land use planning. The first mechanism is through zoning. … Second, PAHO contends that the Zoning Text Amendment is preempted by § 7-112, which establishes the mandatory referral process for public buildings.

West American Insurance v. Popa

352 Md. 455 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Dec 22, 1998

They established fault on the part of the state employee and established their damages at $867,000. This is all that Maryland law requires under the circumstances here. … Waiver of immunity. “(a) In general.

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

Boblitz v. Boblitz

296 Md. 242 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jun 30, 1983

Lyons, 208 N.E. 533 , 536-7 (Ohio 1965) declared, "This court is not convinced that a useful purpose would be served in overthrowing the rule of interspousal immunity from suit so well established in a majority of jurisdictions … In the subject case the issue whether the rule continues to be viable is clearly before us.

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

Baker v. O'Malley

217 Md. App. 288 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · May 27, 2014

Baker’s claims are barred by laches was clearly correct. The Court of Appeals observed in Ipes v. … “Whether the elements of laches have been established 10 is [a question] of fact, while the question of whether in view of the established facts, laches should be invoked