Case law

Lee v. Cline

384 Md. 245 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Dec 13, 2004

that the plaintiff had presented no evidence of malice to overcome Cline’s qualified immunity. … Consequently, judicial opinions dealing with the well-established limitations upon public official immunity furnish no authority for judicially creating similar limitations upon the broad statutory immunity granted by the

Dixon v. Bishop

District Court, D. Maryland · Mar 11, 2020

However, even if the alleged sexual harassment arguably could reach such a level, the Correctional Defendants would 11 be entitled to qualified immunity, because there is no clearly … Ct. 577, 589 (2018) (stating that “officers are entitled to qualified immunity under § 1983 unless (1) they violated a federal statutory or constitutional right, and (2) the unlawfulness of their conduct was ‘clearly established

Traversa v. Ford

718 F. Supp. 2d 639 · District Court, D. Maryland · Jun 17, 2010

Qualified Immunity Assuming arguendo that Traversa stated viable claims under § 1983 and § 1985, the Defendants would nevertheless be entitled to qualified immunity for any claims arising from the decision to delay investigation … Accordingly, the Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity on any claims arising from the decision to delay investigation of Traversa’s Complaint. 4.

Thomas v. City of Annapolis

113 Md. App. 440 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jan 31, 1997

If those three conditions are met, the public official enjoys a qualified immunity in the absence of “malice.” … The parties herein do not always clearly distinguish between immunity and privilege.

State v. Keller-Bee

224 Md. App. 1 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jul 6, 2015

As will be discussed in detail infra, Maryland Courts have clearly established that a judge is immune from tort liability for judicial acts. … The Court continued: The determination of [w]hether a function qualifies for absolute immunity is made objectively and not subjectively.

Estate of Saylor v. Regal Cinemas, Inc.

54 F. Supp. 3d 409 · District Court, D. Maryland · Oct 16, 2014

Under Harlow , government officials performing discretionary functions are entitled to qualified immunity from liability for damages to the extent that “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … The entitlement to qualified immunity involves a two pronged inquiry: “first whether a constitutional violation occurred and second whether the right violated was clearly established.” Melgar v.

Cunningham v. Baltimore Cnty.

246 Md. App. 630 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jul 1, 2020

The Supreme Court has stated that qualified immunity shields government officials performing discretionary functions from civil damages liability “so long as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … The court found that Corporal Ruby was entitled to qualified immunity because his conduct did not violate “clearly established” constitutional rights.

Rodriguez v. State

218 Md. App. 573 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Aug 27, 2014

If the official can establish those two factors, he receives qualified immunity, that is, immunity in the absence of malice. 135 Md. App. at 719 (emphasis added). … Moreover, the Court held that, because the trustees “were clearly not public officials,” it was plain that “the concept of qualified public official immunity is inapplicable to their actions in connection with the judicial

Richter v. Maryland

590 F. Supp. 2d 730 · District Court, D. Maryland · Dec 22, 2008

Defendant Beatty asserts that, even if plaintiff has projected sufficient evidence to establish a constitutional violation, qualified immunity bars plaintiffs claims. … Qualified immunity shields government officials who undertake discretionary functions from civil liability as long as their conduct does not violate clearly established constitutional rights. Orem v.

Cooper v. Rodriguez

443 Md. 680 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jul 24, 2015

App. at 120, 814 A.2d at 134, writing for the Court of Special Appeals, Judge Greene explained that, when the above statutes are read in concert, they “clearly establish[] that a party can bring a viable tort action against … officials are entitled to qualified immunity from negligence claims. . . .

Huemmer v. MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL, ETC.

474 F. Supp. 704 · District Court, D. Maryland · Jul 9, 1979

The immunity established under Tenney was absolute, and Justice Powell, writing for the Court in Imbler , which established absolute immunity under section 1983 for a state prosecuting officer, characterized its scope as … Strickland rule, the immunity defense would be unavailing to petitioners if the constitutional right allegedly infringed by them was clearly established at the time of their challenged conduct, if they knew or should have

Ashton v. Brown

339 Md. 70 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jun 30, 1995

Yet owing to the qualified immunity enjoyed by most government officials, see Scheuer v. … , qualified public official immunity is a defense only to negligence actions.

Bradley v. Fisher

113 Md. App. 603 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Feb 5, 1997

With these considerations in mind, we turn to the case sub judice. *611 Qualified Immunity The appellants, the remaining defendants below, 3 asserted a qualified immunity defense. … established law.

Turner v. Kight

192 F. Supp. 2d 391 · District Court, D. Maryland · Mar 25, 2002

Qualified Immunity Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, “government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly … Because the Court finds that no constitutional right was violated, it is unnecessary to analyze the second step of the qualified immunity analysis, i.e., whether the constitutional right was clearly established.

McREADY v. O'MALLEY

804 F. Supp. 2d 427 · District Court, D. Maryland · Mar 31, 2011

UMUC’s interest in maintaining discipline and efficiently administering the accounting department clearly outweighed Dr. McReady’s speech interests. *441 c. Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. … Where the free speech rights Defendants allegedly violated were not clearly established at the time their challenged actions were taken, they are entitled to qualified immunity. Id. at 805 . Here, Dr.

Leese v. Baltimore County

64 Md. App. 442 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Sep 9, 1985

In recognition of these competing interests, the Court has recognized absolute and qualified immunities. … Clearly, none of the individual appellees in this suit even approach the level of status that would merit absolute immunity. Rather, they warrant at most the qualified immunity accorded all other public employees.

Winkles v. State

40 Md. App. 616 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Nov 3, 1978

We see the alleged agreement — accepting arguendo appellant’s version of it — as neither a plea bargain nor a promised grant of immunity. … Bowie involved an alleged offer of immunity by the State’s Attorney which, we said, he had no authority to make. 3 In this instance, the State’s Attorney was clearly authorized to proceed or not to proceed with the prosecution

Meyers v. BALTIMORE COUNTY, MD.

814 F. Supp. 2d 552 · District Court, D. Maryland · Sep 28, 2011

The Defendants argue that no constitutional violation occurred and that, even if it did, they are entitled to qualified immunity. … If the right was not clearly established, the officers are entitled to qualified immunity notwithstanding the violation. Id. at 200-01, 121 S.Ct. 2151 .

Johnson v. Officer Musa Hammett

District Court, D. Maryland · Dec 23, 2019

However, “[a] right 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.” … Because Hammett’s “actions comported with clearly established Maryland law regarding the service of warrants,” ECF 36 at 4, he maintains that he is, in any event, entitled to qualified immunity.

Baltimore Police Department v. Cherkes

140 Md. App. 282 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Sep 6, 2001

claimed is a qualified immunity, not an absolute immunity, however, application of the collateral order doctrine is not as clear-cut, for two reasons. … In contrast, “public official immunity is qualified, not absolute.