Case law

Bugg v. Maryland Transportation Authority

31 Md. App. 622 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jun 7, 1976

That the Buggs, for whatever reason, did not then establish, as they later did, that the 1958 deed was incorrect does not deny them due process; they were merely denied the result they desired. … Reformation of Instruments § 93a (1952). *632 We hold that the Commission had an absolute right to rely upon the public records which, after the Buggs-McKeever suit in 1962, clearly showed that the Buggs were not a party

Carty v. Carlin

623 F. Supp. 1181 · District Court, D. Maryland · Dec 18, 1985

First, that the undisputed facts clearly indicate that, as a matter of law, the plaintiff is not a handicapped person under the terms of the Rehabilitation Act. … However, the regulation clearly states that the methods of accommodation indicated are not exhaustive.

Montgomery Mutual Insurance v. Chesson

170 Md. App. 551 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Sep 20, 2006

And he said ... that in Maryland, none of the cases had ever gone to trial, they’d always been settled, but he was qualified — asked the question, “have you ever been qualified in any courts, and in any other states, and … Shoemaker]: What I have done is go to medical literature and identify large numbers of peer reviewed articles that deal with abnormalities in innate immune responses, particular immune response genes, particular antigen presentation

Kolker v. Gorn

193 Md. 391 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jun 28, 1949

In the instant case, however, there are qualifying words. … The qualifying words seem clearly applicable to all three parties, and their respective “survivors or survivor”. But the further question arises as to the admissibility and effect of the testimony. In Campbell v.

Campbell v. Sims

District Court, D. Maryland · Jun 30, 2021

Qualified Immunity Standard Officer Sims’s primary argument relating to the § 1983 claim in Count 11 is that he is entitled to qualified immunity. … Accordingly, and where the right to be free from excessive 23 force was clearly established, the Court will deny dismissal or summary judgment based on qualified immunity on this

Malone v. Millan

District Court, D. Maryland · Sep 5, 2023

was clearly established at the time.’” … Qualified immunity turns on the “objective reasonableness of an official’s conduct, as measured by reference to clearly established law.” Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 (1982).

Walther v. Allstate Insurance

83 Md. App. 405 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jun 21, 1990

The scope of the opinion, and by necessary implication, its limitations were established very early on. The Court was careful to point out, in the first footnote, what was at issue and, indeed, what was not. … Once again, the issue presented on this appeal was not there clearly presented.

Gambrill v. Bd. of Education, Dorchester Cnty.

Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Sep 7, 2021

COVERDELL ACT—FEDERAL PREMPETION Where the federal Coverdell Act applies, it provides teachers with immunity from suit, and this immunity “preempt[s] the laws of any State to the extent that such laws are inconsistent with … Here, however, because the Board first brought the issue to our attention, it cannot complain of surprise or a lack of opportunity to respond (although clearly in the reverse of the ordinary order of argument).

Norton v. Weinberger

364 F. Supp. 1117 · District Court, D. Maryland · Sep 14, 1973

Moreover, he opined that merely because a discrimination fell short of providing an insurmountable barrier did not immunize it from the Fourteenth Amendment. … It is not invidious discrimination to require § 416(h) (3) (C)(ii) children to establish the dual elements of paternity and dependency when such is not required of legitimates and those illegitimates qualifying under § 416

Izer v. State

77 Md. 110 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Mar 14, 1893

The secrecy of the proceeding and the guaranteed immunity from punishment would stimulate perjury aud multiply false witnesses. … Luman’s term as clerk had expired in 1891, and that he had been re-elected the same year, and had thereafter duly qualified, but that,, though there had been no re-appointment of Mr.

Neal v. Balt. City Brd. of School Commissioners

467 Md. 399 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Feb 28, 2020

immunity to reach claims up to $400,000. 2016 Md. … According to counsel, he did so “specifically with an eye towards” later establishing the Board’s responsibility to indemnify Officer Pulley under § 5-518.

State v. Philip Morris, Inc.

225 Md. App. 214 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Oct 2, 2015

Therefore, this Court finds that Maryland has failed to meet the requisite burden to establish that 17  the Panel, in issuing the Partial Settlement Award, engaged … As 37 “factual findings by an arbitrator are virtually immune from challenge,” Mandl, 159 Md.

Roll v. State

15 Md. App. 31 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Mar 27, 1972

THE RESPONDENT: Not clearly. Would you please repeat that? … The basic nature of this sentence, like that of the one it replaced, clearly was punitive.

Olumakinde v. Officers of the Classification Department of BCDC

District Court, D. Maryland · Dec 6, 2024

Qualified Immunity Finally, Defendants argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity. … In arguing for qualified immunity, Defendants make no claim that, pursuant to the second prong, it was not clearly established at the time of these events that the Fourteenth Amendment is violated when a correctional

Maryland Port Administration v. C. J. Langenfelder & Son, Inc.

50 Md. App. 525 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jan 11, 1982

The "predecision” interest thus established amounted, in the aggregate for all three claims, to $6,296. … Clearly, the authority noted above to enter into contracts, to sue and be sued, and to do anything necessary or convenient to carry out its powers would imply the power to litigate contract disputes.

Mullaney v. State

5 Md. App. 248 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Oct 9, 1968

To establish the legality of the arrest the State called the arresting officer as its sole witness. … In Draper and McCray, the informer was himself the source of the information that a crime was being committed by the person to be arrested, and the informer’s reliability was clearly established by the evidence.

Kidwell III v. Lee

District Court, D. Maryland · Aug 11, 2025

was clearly established at the time.’” … 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.

Witten v. AH Smith and Co.

567 F. Supp. 1063 · District Court, D. Maryland · Jul 5, 1983

limit § 1985 redress to violations of fundamental Constitutional rights. 20 During the Reconstruction Era, confronted with an increase in the violent activities of the Ku Klux Klan, members of the Forty-Second Congress established … more persons conspire to prevent by force, intimidation, or threat, any citizen who is lawfully entitled to vote, from giving his support or advocacy in a legal manner, toward or in favor of the election of any lawfully qualified

Freeman v. Robinson

District Court, D. Maryland · Feb 15, 2023

of federal rights are entitled to qualified immunity if the right was not clearly established at the time of the violation.” … Without citation to such precedent, Government Defendants could not have violated a “clearly established” federal right and they are entitled to qualified immunity.

Calhoun-EL

District Court, D. Maryland · Mar 26, 2026

“Qualified immunity protects government officials from civil damages in a § 1983 action insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would … To overcome an assertion of qualified immunity from a § 1983 claim, a plaintiff must show that (1) the government official violated a federally protected right of the plaintiff; and (2) that right was clearly established