Case law

Watts v. King

143 Md. App. 293 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Mar 28, 2002

In Karl, 100 Md.App. at 56 , 639 A.2d 214 , we stated: In Wyndham, [supra], the claimant’s failure at arbitration was clearly not due to any deliberate refusal to present sufficient evidence. … (xi) Denying immunity asserted under § 5-525 or § 5-526 of this article. 13 . The arbitration system implemented by the Act has been held constitutionally sound. Attorney Gen. v.

Boone v. Youngbar

234 Md. App. 288 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Sep 29, 2017

App. 348, 945 A.2d 656 (2008), Judge Battaglia’s opinion reiterated that, since 1997, a paternity status established by an affidavit of parentage enjoys essential immunity from a challenge based on genetic evidence. … Whereas the appellant obsesses over the word “mistake,” our concern is with the qualifier “material.” All mistakes are not the same; some are more material than others.

Freeman v. Bragunier Masonry Contractors, Inc.

928 F. Supp. 611 · District Court, D. Maryland · Jun 14, 1996

In order to establish that Freeman fraudulently joined Bragunier, Sverdrup must show either: That there is no possibility that the plaintiff would be able to establish a cause of action against the in-state defendant in state … Defendant Lynchburg asserts the existence of a statutory immunity from suit under Maryland law as well as under Virginia law.

Gordon v. Mayor of Baltimore

5 Gill 231 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Dec 15, 1847

over the constitution and laws of this municipal corporation, so to have modified or repealed the taxing power of the city, as to have accomplished what is asserted to have been the design of this contract, an absolute immunity … be considered as the true construction of the contract, and have insisted, that as the object of the contract was to operate on the taxing power; and as the contract itself was created by a legislative grant of certain immunities

Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission v. Pride Homes, Inc.

291 Md. 537 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Oct 15, 1981

Commission had waived sovereign immunity.” We did not hold that the Commission had waived sovereign immunity. In fact, it is doubtful whether the Commission as such could waive such immunity. … We said, "When read as a *544 whole, § 1-3 clearly expresses a legislative intent to waive the WSSC’s sovereign immunity.” Id. at 515.

Barber v. Catholic Health Initiatives, Inc.

174 Md. App. 314 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Apr 30, 2007

Filing of claim; appointment of arbitrators; arbitrators’ immunity from suit. *333 (a) Filing of claim and response — (1) A person having a claim against a health care provider for damage due to a medical injury shall file … The Walzer Court reasoned that, when the Legislature enacted C.J. § 3-2A-04 (b)(1)®, it “clearly intended for claims to be dismissed if the claimant failed to file the certificate of qualified expert within 90 days of filing

Miles v. State of Maryland

District Court, D. Maryland · Aug 28, 2025

And with respect to qualified immunity, although dismissal 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 … And the legal standards under the Eighth Amendment based on threats among prisoners are clearly established, as discussed above.

Corporal v. Smith

District Court, D. Maryland · Sep 2, 2021

To be entitled to qualified immunity, Lt. … If the right was not clearly established, the qualified immunity doctrine shields a defendant officer from liability.

Rosin v. Hill

District Court, D. Maryland · Sep 10, 2024

Qualified Immunity In the alternative, to the extent that Rosin may argue that Hill’s stated reasons were insufficient, or that additional process was required, Court finds that Hill is entitled to qualified immunity … from such claims because there is no clearly established law requiring additional safeguards.

Gables Construction v. Red Coats

241 Md. App. 1 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · May 10, 2019

evidence establishing that GCI breached the standard of care. … In some cases, the contract may clearly express an intended third party beneficiary, see Schlicht v.

Queen v. Pesterfield

District Court, D. Maryland · Jun 6, 2025

Qualified Immunity Defendants also raise a defense of qualified immunity. (Mot. at 5). … Baltimore City Police Department, the Fourth Circuit reiterated: “Qualified immunity protects government officials from liability for ‘civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory

O'Brien & Gere Engineers, Inc. v. City of Salisbury

222 Md. App. 492 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Apr 28, 2015

It concluded that because the absolute litigation privilege protects a public right, an individual cannot waive it: Since the absolute litigation privilege is a firmly established right of immunity designed to protect the … Clearly, the target defendants in the case were OBG and CDG. .

Barry

District Court, D. Maryland · Jul 8, 2026

immunity: “Absent from the Complaint are any plausible factual allegations that any defendant engaged in conduct that a reasonable correctional official would have recognized as violating a ‘clearly established’ … This aggravation was the unconstitutional conduct at issue, and because it “was clearly established” as unconstitutional when the Case officers acted, they were not entitled to qualified immunity. □□□ So too here

Stracke v. Estate of Butler

Court of Appeals of Maryland · Aug 15, 2019

The language in § 5-604(a) clearly differs from the language in § 5- 603(b)(3) because the former section omits the word “volunteer” from its language of which entities are afforded immunity. … Given those facts, it clearly was a jury issue as to whether, after being consistently told by Ms.

Jordan v. Davis

District Court, D. Maryland · Jul 31, 2024

If the law at the time of the alleged violation was not “clearly established,” the official will be entitled to qualified immunity because “an official could not reasonably be expected to anticipate subsequent legal developments … The Fourth Circuit has “effectively done away with the clearly established prong of qualified immunity for a subset of deliberate indifference cases,” Younger, 79 F.4th at 385 n.17, namely, cases in which the alleged “Eighth

Moreno v. Toll

480 F. Supp. 1116 · District Court, D. Maryland · Oct 31, 1979

Clearly the University is not bound to use the concept of domicile, as defined by state law, in fashioning its- tuition policy. … Given the University’s definition of domicile, which by its terms excludes nonimmigrant aliens, it is universally true that G-4 aliens cannot qualify for instate status under that policy.

Ivy H. Smith Co. v. Warffemius

201 Md. 367 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Oct 1, 1965

Applicable Immunities of Principal. An agent who is acting in pursuance of his authority has such immunities of the principal as are not personal to the principal. Herzog v. … Clearly they were' intended to "prevent a trespass- by the contractor and thus liability on the Co-operative — and it would not be liable unless the contractor were its ’ agent.

Pallett

District Court, D. Maryland · Aug 26, 2026

Defendants’ qualified immunity argument likewise fails at this juncture. … “Qualified immunity bars § 1983 actions against government officials in their individual capacities ‘unless (1) they violated a federal statutory or constitutional right, and (2) the unlawfulness of their conduct was clearly

Bentley v. Carroll

355 Md. 312 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Aug 4, 1999

We have never indicated that a person can qualify as an “expert in credibility,” no matter what his experience or expertise. … We reiterated in Bohnert that no matter how highly qualified the expert may be in his field, his opinion has no probative force unless a sufficient factual basis to support a rational conclusion is shown.

Stedman v. Dean

District Court, D. Maryland · Apr 2, 2025

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY Defendants seek to dismiss Plaintiff’s federal constitutional claims, invoking qualified immunity. … [not] clearly established at the time of’ its alleged violation.”