Case law

Torres v. State

95 Md. App. 126 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Feb 3, 1993

That case established that a warrantless arrest in a home (or functional equivalent) is invalid, absent exigent circumstances. … New York does not confer upon the suspect immunity from subsequent lawful arrest. Once the suspect is outside the protected premises, therefore, the initially invalid restraint ripens into valid restraint.

Benford v. American Broadcasting Companies, Inc.

102 F.R.D. 208 · District Court, D. Maryland · Jun 6, 1984

That legitimate legislative functions include information-gathering in aid of the legislative process is a long-established principle. Eastland, 421 U.S. at 504-05 , 95 S.Ct. at 1821-22 ; McGrain v. … They were not meddlesome interlopers; though volunteers, their services were clearly procured through the catalytic efforts of Committee staff.

Bunting v. State

312 Md. 472 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · May 5, 1988

State, 282 Md. 557 , 386 A.2d 1206 (1978), clearly illustrates that only a very few .rights are analogous to the Double Jeopardy Clause’s entitlement not to stand trial. … This would be flatly inconsistent with the long-established and sound public policy against piecemeal appeals. 9 As the circuit Court’s order in the present case did not fall within the collateral order doctrine, the Court

Dewhurst v. Telenor Invest As

83 F. Supp. 2d 577 · District Court, D. Maryland · Jan 24, 2000

The parties also agreed to establish a new corporation, ultimately NNT, to provide financial and management services to FCN (collectively the “NNT/FCN venture”). … Commercial activity unrelated to the lawsuit will not relinquish a foreign state’s immunity.

Hollander v. Pan American World Airways, Inc.

382 F. Supp. 96 · District Court, D. Maryland · Mar 7, 1974

Undoubtedly there are many varieties of situations in any of which the conditional or qualified privilege might arise. W. … of proof, rather than rely upon qualified privilege.

Orellana v. United States of America

District Court, D. Maryland · Apr 5, 2021

Defendants alternatively argue that the Individual Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity because Plaintiff cannot establish a violation of her Fourth Amendment rights; and even if she could, … [] Qualified immunity is applicable unless the official’s conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right.” Id. (citing Anderson v.

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

Gables Construction v. Red Coats

468 Md. 632 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · May 26, 2020

In holding that the defendants could not file a third-party complaint against the employer because of the employer immunity conferred by the Workers’ Compensation Act, we reasoned that the Commissioner’s notes clearly contemplated … Specifically, we observed that we had found that there was no right of contribution under the UCATA in the context of interspousal immunity and workers’ compensation immunity.

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.

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.

Braun v. Headley

131 Md. App. 588 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Apr 26, 2000

are plainly arbitrary or clearly erroneous. … Based on its factual findings, the court’s award was not clearly erroneous. See Lemley v.

George W. Cochran Co. v. Comptroller of the Treasury, Alcohol & Tobacco Tax Division

292 Md. 3 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Nov 24, 1981

The Court stated ( 445 U.S. at 105 ): "First, the challenged restraint must be 'one clearly articulated and affirmatively expressed as state policy’; second, the policy must be 'actively supervised’ by the State itself. … The statute embodies "a clearly articulated and affirmatively expressed” state policy. Midcal, supra, 445 U.S. at 105 .

Johnson v. Clark

199 Md. App. 305 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jun 2, 2011

established rights, privileges, and immunities secured to them by the Declaration of Rights of the Constitution of the State of Maryland, including but not limited to Articles 2, 19, 24, 26, and arising under the laws and … The acts alleged herein violated clearly established constitutional rights of the Plaintiffs and Brandon Clark, were not objectively reasonable, and were done under circumstances in which no reasonable officer would fail

Waicker v. Colbert

347 Md. 108 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Sep 2, 1997

Products, 306 Md. 644 , 511 A.2d 40 (1986), represents the only exception to this established precedent. … Clearly, the issue in both actions was the same: the validity and applicability of the relevant statutes.

Montgomery County v. Bhatt

446 Md. 79 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jan 22, 2016

He argues that “the County has not cited a single Maryland decision holding that a privately-owned railway is immune to adverse possession.” … In order to be considered “immune” from a claim for adverse possession, the right- of-way must remain in public use.

Department of Public Safety & Correctional Services v. Ara Health Services, Inc.

107 Md. App. 445 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Dec 27, 1995

In the Board’s view, this established that the parties consciously chose to abide by the terms of the original Contract for the period in issue. The circuit court reversed. … Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission, 284 Md. 503, 512 , 397 A.2d 1027 (1979) (no waiver unless the Legislature provides for one clearly or by necessary and compelling implication).

Campbell v. U.S. Navy

567 F. Supp. 356 · District Court, D. Maryland · Jul 11, 1983

However, plaintiff shall have twenty days in which to file an amended complaint which properly establishes subject matter jurisdiction. … Defendants alternatively contend that sovereign immunity deprives the Court of subject matter jurisdiction.

Neal v. Fryer

District Court, D. Maryland · Feb 25, 2025

Qualified immunity “typically involves two inquiries: (1) whether the plaintiff has established the violation of a constitutional right, and (2) whether that right was clearly established at the time of the … “Aright need not be recognized by a court in a specific factual context before such right may be considered ‘clearly established’ for purposes of qualified immunity.” /d:-(citations omitted). However, courts.

Carter v. Maryland Management Co.

377 Md. 596 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Nov 10, 2003

Section 42(a) establishes the amount of the tax credit as “(1) the applicable percentage of (2) the qualified basis of each qualified low-income building.” … The legislative history of the 1990 amendment clearly supports that intent.

Jones v. Jordan

District Court, D. Maryland · Jul 2, 2020

It is well-settled that government officials performing discretionary functions are entitled to qualified immunity “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which … “‘whether that right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation.’”