Case law

International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 1805 v. Mayo

281 Md. 475 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Dec 6, 1977

Sindorf, 276 Md. at 596-97 , in establishing his right to recover for the alleged defamation. … Clearly, if the absence of injury to reputation will not prevent an award of compensatory damages where mere negligence is established, it will not do so where, as here, the New York Times standard of malice is met.

Pilar v. SS Hess Petrol

55 F.R.D. 159 · District Court, D. Maryland · May 22, 1972

Defendants, on the other hand, contend that the informer’s privilege is inapplicable because the identity of the informer, Wicker, has been established. … The privilege that exists is only a qualified one, which can give way under appropriate circumstances.

Brown v. Mayor & City Council

167 Md. App. 306 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Feb 24, 2006

Price’s appointed counsel answered the appellant’s complaint, raising various defenses, including qualified immunity. … He did not, and instead chose to plead guilty upon a statement of facts clearly establishing that the murder was premeditated, deliberate, and with malice.

Reyes

District Court, D. Maryland · Jul 23, 2026

Qualified Immunity Defendants assert they are entitled to qualified immunity. … If the right was not clearly established, the qualified immunity doctrine shields a defendant officer from liability.

Ijams v. Duvall

36 L.R.A. 127 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Feb 24, 1897

How that person is to be chosen is clearly pointed out by the 12th section. He is to be elected by the people at the “ new election.” … mode of filling the vacancy is “clearly and explicitly provided.”

Edwards v. Mayor of Baltimore

176 Md. App. 446 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Sep 28, 2007

In addition, the LGTCA prohibits local governments from asserting the defense of governmental immunity to avoid this responsibility and liability, and it establishes monetary caps per individual claim and occurrence on the … Nevertheless, *470 appellant does not raise a question in this appeal that the circuit court was clearly erroneous in its finding. .

Robinson v. Pytlewski

District Court, D. Maryland · Feb 7, 2020

To overcome qualified immunity, a plaintiff must demonstrate first that defendants violated a federal right, and second that the right had been “clearly established” at the time of defendant’s alleged misconduct. … Defendants argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity because Robinson has neither shown violation of his constitutional rights or, alternatively, that any such violation was clearly established.

Abramson v. Reiss

334 Md. 193 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Mar 23, 1994

the Secretary of State of Maryland as a charitable organization, the charitable nature of its many and varied activities and the allocation of such income and fees it obtains in furtherance of its activities, [t]he JCC is clearly … Bishop Byrne Home, 249 Md. 233 , 238 A.2d 863 , this Court was asked once again to overthrow the long established doctrine of immunity of charitable organizations from tort liability, for the reasons that it is an anachronism

Stevenson v. State

299 Md. 297 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Apr 9, 1984

In the qualifying part of his testimony Michaelson testified that he had graduated cum laude from the Illinois School of Technology, a fact which subsequently proved to be untrue. … United States, 24 F.2d 82, 87 (7th Cir.1928), is the case credited with establishing the “might” rule that appellant urges this Court to adopt.

Horridge v. St. Mary's County Department of Social Services

382 Md. 170 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jul 28, 2004

The only averment in that regard is that they were licensed social workers which, if anything, suggests that they were at least professionally qualified. … The elements of a cause of action in negligence are well-established.

Hess v. Muir

65 Md. 586 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jun 24, 1886

It is, in fact, a property right, and not a mere privilege or immunity of citizenship.” … It is simply a conditional or qualified license or franchise, revocable at the will and *610 pleasure of the State. Phipps vs. State, 22 Md., 380, 388 .

Nutramax Laboratories, Inc. v. Twin Laboratories Inc.

183 F.R.D. 458 · District Court, D. Maryland · Dec 7, 1998

Defendants contend that if this affirmative defense is successfully established, it will end the case. … ” or “nearly absolutely immune” from discovery.

Gelin v. Baltimore County, State of Maryland

District Court, D. Maryland · Mar 13, 2023

was clearly established at the time.” … Wesby, 138 S.Ct. 577, 5 89 (2018) (“The ‘clearly established’ standard also requires that the legal principle - clearly prohibit the officer’s conduct in the particular circumstances before him.”).

APL Corp. v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co.

91 F.R.D. 10 · District Court, D. Maryland · Apr 25, 1980

The qualified work product immunity of Rule 26(b)(3) extends to material prepared before litigation commences, provided that “some possibility of litigation” exists. … Thus, even if the Thomas Organ approach is disregarded, those materials are not protected from discovery under Rule 26(b)(3), since the qualified immunity does not extend to “[mjaterials assembled in the ordinary course of

Butz v. State

221 Md. 68 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Dec 10, 1959

Upon the resumption of the trial, the Assistant State’s Attorney advised that the State was granting immunity to this witness, and the court concurred in the granting of the immunity and ruled, without objection from the … witness, that she must testify as immunity had been granted.

Motor Vehicle Administration of the Maryland Department of Transportation v. Seidel Chevrolet, Inc.

326 Md. 237 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Apr 10, 1992

We believe that MVA’s characterization more accurately reflects the Legislature’s intent in establishing the Fund. … State Highway Admin., we observed: "A waiver of sovereign or governmental immunity from suit generally requires that two conditions be met.

Berry v. Department of Human Resources

88 Md. App. 461 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Sep 10, 1991

Acting then on the motion for reconsideration, the court, on grounds of sovereign immunity, dismissed Mr. Berry’s and Ms. … Section 16, for example, allows the Secretary to establish new classes of positions and to combine, alter, or abolish existing classes.

Jackson v. Carin

District Court, D. Maryland · Mar 2, 2020

right was not clearly established. … He is therefore not entitled to qualified immunity. Smith v.

Wachter v. United States

689 F. Supp. 1420 · District Court, D. Maryland · Jun 23, 1988

Section 2680(h) expressly excludes misrepresentation claims from the FTCA’s waiver of sovereign immunity. Shock v. United States, 689 F.Supp. 1424, 1425-26 (D.Md.1988) (copy attached as Appendix). … The article submitted as part of his affidavit does not clearly establish that proposition.

Hansen v. Kaplan

47 Md. App. 32 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Oct 20, 1980

A review of the critical facts established at trial is necessary for a proper analysis of the argument presented. … In holding that he was, the Court said: 'That there can be more than one proximate cause of an accident is clearly established.