Case law

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.”

Saunders v. Baltimore City Police Dept.

District Court, D. Maryland · Mar 30, 2020

Once a qualified immunity defense is raised, to avoid dismissal “a plaintiff must allege sufficient facts to set forth a violation of a constitutional right, and the court must conclude that this right was clearly established … At present, however, both approaches result in qualified immunity for the officer, as any Fourth Amendment right is not “clearly established.”

Tiernan v. Rescaniere's Adm'rs.

10 G. & J. 217 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Dec 15, 1838

In the case of a payment made to an individual under the same circumstances, it clearly would not. … It is true the sovereign power has an immunity from suits, but that very immunity is grounded on the maxim, that the sovereign power is always ready and willing to do justice, and the same justice it is to be presumed, would

Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission v. Pride Homes, Inc.

47 Md. App. 390 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Dec 15, 1980

As the Court pointed out, its discourse in that case was necessary to distinguish a previous holding which clearly established the law applicable to the case at bar. … Katz was addressing whether the WSSC was immune from suit. 1 Neuenschwander was analyzing the WSSC’s right to sue, which is precisely the subject of the instant case.

Skinner v. Mannino

District Court, D. Maryland · Jan 26, 2022

Qualified Immunity Mannino further argues that regardless of whether Skinner has stated valid claims, she is entitled to the defense of qualified immunity. … Qualified immunity shields government officials performing discretionary functions “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which

Pulvermann v. AS Abell Company

131 F. Supp. 617 · District Court, D. Maryland · May 2, 1955

Plaintiffs admit that" a newspaper may have a qualified privilege to publish libelous statements, but maintain that such qualified privilege has been abused by defendant in that (1) the defendant published the article after … Yet this guaranty does not give immunity to the press from liability for libelous statements, but merely secures to the press the same basic rights and immunities as are enjoyed by the public at large.

Schweizer v. Schweizer

55 Md. App. 373 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jul 12, 1983

The value of marital property has not been "acquired,” and therefore is immune from distribution, to the extent that the source of funds employed to finance the property is an outstanding debt, irrespective of how the debt … Harper established that "acquire” means "the on-going process of making *380 payment for property.”

People's Counsel v. Surina

400 Md. 662 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Aug 23, 2007

The Assertion of Immunity Under Glascock in This Case is Problematic. … Access roads clearly are "uses” permitted as of right in both the R.C. 2, BCZR § 1A01.2.B.5, and R.C. 5 zones, BCZR § 1A04.2.A.7. 26 .

Tinch v. United States

189 F. Supp. 2d 313 · District Court, D. Maryland · Mar 11, 2002

The United States, and its officers, are presumed to be immune to suit, unless they have expressly waived their immunity. “Absent a waiver, sovereign immunity shields the Federal Government and its agencies from suit.” … Probable cause was unquestionably established by the fact that the car was reported as stolen in the NCIC, thereby precluding the Fourth Amendment claim.

A+ Gov't. Solutions v. Comptroller

Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Mar 31, 2022

While CNI may not be obliged to complete a Form 1120 for the federal government, CNI and its subsidiaries are clearly required to do so in order to complete the Maryland return. … CNI Technical Services and A+ Government Solutions were not qualified or registered to do business in Maryland during 2012.

Cutlip v. Lucky Stores, Inc.

22 Md. App. 673 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Sep 20, 1974

established. … “THE WITNESS: I do not feel that an architect is qualified to perform structural engineering inspection. “BY MR. LAYNE: “Q. Who is the professionally qualified person to do that, sir? “A.

Estate of Renardo Green v. City of Annapolis (MD)

District Court, D. Maryland · Apr 7, 2025

conduct was clearly established at the time.’” … Cope, where that court “granted qualified immunity to a paramedic who sedated an injured arrestee before taking the arrestee to the hospital because it was not clearly established that such conduct violates the Fourth

Harrison v. Motor Vehicle Administration

302 Md. 634 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Apr 10, 1985

has waived the immunity either directly or by necessary implication.” … 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.

Basnueva v. Mallow

District Court, D. Maryland · Aug 8, 2024

Qualified Immunity Defendants assert in a cursory manner that they are entitled to qualified immunity from liability because they did not violate Basnueva’s constitutional rights. (ECF No. 13-1 at 21-23.) … lawful in light of clearly established law.”

Bailey v. Lally

481 F. Supp. 203 · District Court, D. Maryland · Jul 21, 1979

We agree with petitioners that as prison officials and officers, they were not absolutely immune from liability in this § 1983 damages suit and could rely only on the qualified immunity described in Scheuer v. … 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

Hatzinicolas v. Protopapas

314 Md. 340 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Dec 9, 1988

The plaintiff alleged that “Protopapas t/a Hopkins Carry Out was negligent by failing to maintain the establishment in a proper and safe manner for its invitees, that [Protopapas] knew or should have known of the dangerous … In fact, a note in the Maryland Law Review concerning the Riegger decision points out that when this Court decided that case, the trend was clearly opposite the view there taken. 6 Md.L.Rev. 173, 175 n. 13 (1942).

Conover v. Conover

450 Md. 51 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jul 7, 2016

Next, the court ruled that even if Michelle qualified as a “father” under ET § l-208(b) despite her being female, the statute did not establish parentage for purposes of child custody and visitation: A non-biological, non-adoptive … For these reasons, the first ground for overruling Janice M. is satisfied—the precedent was “clearly wrong and contrary to established principles.” DRD Pool Serv., 416 Md. at 64 , 5 A.3d 45 . Janice M.

Akinola v. Corizon Health Service

District Court, D. Maryland · Feb 22, 2023

Qualified Immunity Furthermore, Officer Lavin is entitled to qualified immunity. … If the right was not clearly established, the qualified immunity doctrine shields a defendant officer from liability.

Dennis v. Fire & Police Employees' Retirement System

390 Md. 639 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jan 18, 2006

We stated as follows: “The law requires each plan to establish ‘reasonable procedures to determine the qualified status of domestic relations orders and to administer distributions under such qualified orders.’ 29 U.S.C. … Under the definition of “Qualified Domestic Relations Order” adopted in the REA, a domestic relations order is a qualified domestic relations order only if it “clearly specifies ... each plan to which such order applies.”

Kelly v. Vote Know Coalition of Maryland, Inc.

331 Md. 164 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jun 28, 1993

officer did not possess public official or any other sort of individual immunity, Surratt v. … The ballot language certified by the Secretary of State in this case is not obtuse and clearly conveys the purpose of the referred measure.