Case law

Cooper

District Court, D. Maryland · Jan 20, 2026

Qualified Immunity Finally, Toh argues that he is entitled to qualified immunity. ECF 8-1, at 9-10. … of their conduct was clearly established at the time.’”

Enviro-Gro Technologies v. Bockelmann

88 Md. App. 323 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Sep 5, 1991

It further stated that, even if the sludge was fertilizer, its storage did not qualify as a conditional use. … established rule in the law of zoning that a court may not substitute its judgment for that of the Zoning Board.”

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.

Bly v. Circuit Court for Howard County, MD

District Court, D. Maryland · Jun 26, 2019

The doctrine of qualified immunity shields government officials “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … Here, Judge Gelfman clearly qualifies as a judicial officer.

Robinson v. Bunch

367 Md. 432 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jan 11, 2002

Limitation on defense of sovereign immunity. … A dispute between individual employees and the appropriate state officials concerning overtime compensation is clearly encompassed by the administrative grievance procedure.

Anne Arundel County Board of Education v. Norville

390 Md. 93 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Dec 12, 2005

Following an investigation, the EEOC closed its file, and advised Norville that it was “unable to conclude that the information obtained establishes violations of statutes.” … Maryland has clearly not waived its immunity from suits brought under the ADEA, and this immunity applies to private actions brought against its agencies in both federal and state courts.

J.A.

District Court, D. Maryland · Sep 14, 2026

“The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials ‘from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … “[O]ff[ials] 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 at the time.’”

Brent v. City of Cumberland Police Department

District Court, D. Maryland · Oct 27, 2023

Analysis The question before the Court is whether class-of-one Equal Protection law is not clearly established such that the Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. … Defendants contend that Engquist has disrupted the law on class-of-one claims such that the law is no longer clearly established and so Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. (Defs.’

Rose v. Baltimore County Maryland

District Court, D. Maryland · Aug 23, 2024

“[O]fficers 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 at the time.’” … Radomski’s allegedly violated right was “clearly established” at the time Officer Defendants shot him do not militate in favor of the outcome they seek at this time; a finding as to qualified immunity is premature.

Mayor of Baltimore v. Austin

40 Md. App. 557 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Nov 3, 1978

Rev. 910 (1936), as follows: “The rules sought to be established [in determining whether a given function is *568 governmental or proprietary] are as logical as those governing French irregular verbs.” … Charter Article VII, Sections (61) through (64) spell out the general powers and duties of the Department of Recreation and Parks, and the operation of a day camp center is clearly authorized within these powers and duties

Murphy v. Bishop

District Court, D. Maryland · Feb 17, 2023

“Qualified immunity protects government officials from liability for ‘civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have … If the right was not clearly established, the qualified immunity doctrine shields a defendant officer from liability.

Floyd v. Hansen

District Court, D. Maryland · Aug 14, 2024

“The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials ‘from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which … right was clearly established at the time.”

Macedo v. Automobile Insurance Co.

480 Md. 200 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Aug 11, 2022

The Insurance Article contemplates the possibility of an umbrella policy providing optional UM coverage: “A policy that, as its primary purpose, provides coverage in excess of other valid and collectible insurance or qualified … If the statutory language is “unambiguous and clearly consistent with the statute’s apparent purpose, [the] inquiry as to legislative intent ends ordinarily and we apply the statute as written, without resort to other

Frye v. Frye

305 Md. 542 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Mar 11, 1986

Our survey clearly established that the overwhelming weight of authority was in complete accord with the abrogation of the rule as to cases sounding in negligence. … cautions: Repudiation of general tort immunity does not establish liability for an act or omission that, because of the parent-child relationship, is otherwise privileged or is not tortious.

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.

Johnson v. Baltimore Police Department

District Court, D. Maryland · Mar 10, 2020

Qualified immunity turns on the “objective reasonableness of an official’s conduct, as measured by reference to clearly established law.” Harlow, 457 U.S. at 818. … 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.”

Telep v. Stickney

District Court, D. Maryland · May 3, 2024

Thus, ‘unless the plaintiff’s allegations state a claim of a violation of clearly established law, a defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled to dismissal before the commencement of discovery.’” … Although a “case directly on point for a right to be clearly established” is not necessary to deny an officer qualified immunity, “existing precedent must have placed the statutory or constitutional question beyond debate

Howell v. State

237 Md. App. 540 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jun 27, 2018

in court or before grand juries and other governmental agencies is firmly established in Anglo-American jurisprudence. … The defense of duress is not established by proof that the defendant had been threatened with violence at an earlier time.

City Homes, Inc. v. Hazelwood

210 Md. App. 615 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Mar 22, 2013

Thus, at trial, [appellee] relied on other evidence, including Arc Environmental’s testing results, to establish the presence of lead-based and flaking paint at the property. … On June 30, 2011, Mankowitz filed a reply memorandum in support of his motion for summary judgment, again arguing that he was entitled to statutory immunity.

Purnell v. Converse

District Court, D. Maryland · Dec 9, 2022

Qualified Immunity “The doctrine of qualified immunity shields government officials from liability for civil damages when their conduct does not violate clearly established … July 30, 2010) (refusing to grant qualified immunity at the summary judgment stage because the officers bore the burden of establishing qualified immunity and had not established the existence of probable cause permitting