Case law

(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

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.

In Re Trusko

212 B.R. 819 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Maryland · Sep 3, 1997

The federal credit union system was therefore established as an alternative to an unacceptable credit structure, a structure that included banks. … In order to deal with these problems, Congress authorized the establishment of federal credit unions. S.Rep. No. 555, 73d Cong., 2d Sess. (1934).

Brown

District Court, D. Maryland · Aug 26, 2026

Adismissal of a complaint based on qualified immunity “is appropriate when the face of the complaint clearly reveals the existence of a meritorious defense.” Brockington v. … Brownhas sufficiently alleged facts that, if true,show a violation of a constitutional right that was clearly established at the time of the incident, therefore overcoming qualified immunitybased on the pleadings and for

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.

State v. Fearing

30 Md. App. 134 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jan 30, 1976

You should clearly understand that you are not going to be compelled to testify and that you do not have immunity from prosecution. … This Court in Panagoulis stated: “We also think that there were no other circumstances shown sufficient to establish that the appellee otherwise waived immunity by his conduct.

Hunter v. Snee

District Court, D. Maryland · Jan 24, 2022

Qualified immunity shields an officer from claims for damages unless Plaintiff shows “(1) that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) that the right was ‘clearly established’ at the time … Because the test is two-fold, if the Court determines the right is not clearly established, then the doctrine of qualified immunity will shield Defendant from liability.

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.

Koprivich v. State

1 Md. App. 147 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Apr 10, 1967

In light of the facts in this case, Mary Koprivich’s statement clearly meets this test. She was no stranger to the legal process due to prior encounters with the police. … The general rule, well established in this State, is that an extrajudicial confession or statement of the accused does not warrant a conviction, unless there is, also, independent evidence to establish the corpus delicti.

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

Athas v. Hill

54 Md. App. 293 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Apr 12, 1983

The employer on the other hand received immunity from general tort liability and damages and received an established basis for determining the extent of its monetary liability. … In short, they share Summit’s immunity from a suit at law.

Chan v. Lopez

District Court, D. Maryland · Jul 31, 2024

The individual Defendants assert that they enjoy qualified immunity because “it is not clearly established that public employees are subject to individual liability under FMLA.” ECF 18 at 11 n.7. … In other words, what must be clearly established in the qualified immunity context is a right enjoyed by the Plaintiff, not whether a particular party can be sued or held liable for a violation of that right.

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.

Weide v. Mass Transit Administration

628 F. Supp. 247 · District Court, D. Maryland · Jun 28, 1985

A general waiver of sovereign immunity for a state agency, such as the one found in Md.Transp.Code Ann. § 7-702, “does not constitute a waiver by the state of its constitutional immunity under the Eleventh Amendment from … In this case, the common nucleus is clearly present.

Peurifoy v. Congressional Motors, Inc.

254 Md. 501 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Aug 4, 1969

Communications arising out of the employer-employee relationship clearly enjoy a qualified privilege, and could be included in the line of cases which extend the privilege to groups engaged in a common purpose, Prosser, Torts … See also, Evans, Legal Immunity for Defamation, 24 Minn. L.

Gill v. Mallow

District Court, D. Maryland · Nov 13, 2023

If the evidence establishes a violation of a constitutional right, the second prong is to assess whether the right was “clearly established” at the time of the events at issue. Id. … If the right was not clearly established, the qualified immunity doctrine shields a defendant officer from liability.

Doe v. Doe

122 Md. App. 295 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jun 29, 1998

the rule [of inter-spousal immunity] continues to be viable is clearly before us. … Doe does not qualify as extreme and outrageous within the meaning of the tort.

Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission v. Riverdale Heights Volunteer Fire Co.

308 Md. 556 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Feb 10, 1987

It establishes a rule of substantive law. … Unlike the instant case, Janda involved a statute the terms of which clearly reflected a retroactive intent.

Montgomery County Career Fire Fighters Ass'n v. Montgomery County

210 Md. App. 200 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Mar 4, 2013

The underlying purpose of establishing an orderly budget system with clearly delineated responsibility was the rationale behind the Court’s holding in Foster Children, where it stated: The provisions of the Budget Amendment … The Court explained that it may overrule its own precedent when a decision is “clearly wrong and contrary to established principles” or “when there *234 is a showing that the precedent has been superseded by significant changes

Whalen v. Mayor & City Council of Baltimore

164 Md. App. 292 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Sep 16, 2005

Noting that “recreational purpose” is defined at N.R. § 5 — 1101(f) as “ ‘any recreational pursuit,’ ” appellee argued that Whalen’s use of the Park to allow her dog to relieve itself was “clearly a recreational purpose.” … To establish the location of the hole, the City relied on the deposition testimony of appellant’s expert, John Rekus.