Case law

Boyer v. State

323 Md. 558 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Aug 26, 1991

A decision to operate or continue operating the car, when a reasonable person would not do so, clearly can be “negligent operation.” … Charles County, in its motion for summary judgment, established a prima facie defense of gov *576 ernmental immunity. See Kee v. State Highway Admin., 313 Md. 445, 460 , 545 A.2d 1312, 1320 (1988).

Adkins v. State

72 Md. App. 493 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Oct 7, 1987

Troxell’s statements, parts of which clearly implicated both him and appellant in the robbery and killing, *498 were admitted as declarations against Troxell’s penal interest. … Substantively, he attacks the admission of the tape and transcript as a violation of his Sixth Amendment right of confrontation and on the ground that Troxell’s statements do not qualify as declarations against penal interest

Campbell v. Perkins

District Court, D. Maryland · Sep 21, 2023

In the event this Court finds that Campbell has stated a constitutional claim, Defendants assert that they are entitled to qualified immunity because they did not violate a clearly established right. … If the right was not clearly established, the qualified immunity doctrine shields a defendant officer from liability.

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.

Schoberg

District Court, D. Maryland · Dec 16, 2025

, Willingham, 412 F.3d at 559, and the defendant asserting qualified immunity bears the burden to establish that a right was not clearly established, Rambert v. … Schoberg had a clearly established right to be free of warrantless arrest in this case, and Defendants have not met their burden as to the clearly established prong of qualified immunity.

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.

United States v. Maryland

488 F. Supp. 347 · District Court, D. Maryland · Mar 31, 1980

McCulloch involved a stamp tax imposed by Maryland on bank notes issued by “any Bank . established without authority from the State.” … Certainly the burden, the harassment, the unpleasantness of those taxes would be as easy to establish as the burden of the present tax.

Brown v. State

409 Md. 1 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · May 18, 2009

When her claim was dismissed on the ground that the judge had absolute immunity from suit, the petitioner noted an appeal. … stated: [Parker’s] argument [that the Circuit Court for Baltimore City did not have “jurisdiction” to issue a post-acquittal warrant for her arrest] not only misconstrues the statute but overlooks the critical distinction, clearly

Raithel v. State

40 Md. App. 107 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jul 14, 1978

Carmencita Mola, was qualified to express an opinion. Alternatively, appellant argues the report was inadmissible because Dr. … In arguing that the State must affirmatively establish the qualification of the declarant before the record can be admitted appellant overlooks Marlow .

Plitt v. Yakel

129 Md. 464 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Dec 13, 1916

This view, in our opinion, is clearly correct. … It is conceded, and, of course, it could not be doubted, that the sixth clause of the will establishes an effective spendthrift trust, with complete immunity from attachment, as to all the “legacies and bequests” to which

Wetherby v. Retail Credit Co.

235 Md. 237 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jun 9, 1964

It is a common, if not the general rule, that if the defendant establishes a qualified privilege the plaintiff, to prevail, must show not only malice but falsity. Ashcroft v. Hammond (N. Y.), 90 N. … Clearly, if the plaintiff must prove falsity to recover, when privilege has been established, the appellants were not entitled to the instruction they requested as to the continued presumption of falsity unless justification

Pease v. American Cyanamid Co.

795 F. Supp. 755 · District Court, D. Maryland · Jun 18, 1992

To do- so would, in my mind, be to embody in the law an excessive deference to established authority on a question of continuing scientific uncertainty. … Miles Laboratories, Inc., 927 F.2d 187, 190-91 (4th Cir.1991), clearly provides me with the latitude to engage in the type of analysis which I have made.

Brink v. DaLesio

453 F. Supp. 272 · District Court, D. Maryland · Apr 5, 1978

Section 501(a) establishes the standard by which this suit is to be judged. … These accusations clearly state a cause of action under 29 U.S.C. §§ 501 and 1101 et seq. II.

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.

Weber v. Probey

125 Md. 544 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Apr 8, 1915

to vote at the regular town election to he held in May, 1914, shall be qualified to vote at the special election in April, 1914, and that all persons qualified to vote at the regular town election to be held in May, 1915 … , shall be qualified to vote at the special election in April, 1915.

Beasley (Dorian) v. Mozingo

District Court, D. Maryland · Jan 29, 2021

If the right was not clearly established, the qualified immunity doctrine shields a defendant officer from liability. … The prohibition against the use of excessive force on a prisoner was clearly established at the time of the incident.

State v. Jones

197 Md. App. 638 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Mar 1, 2011

Jones, that the sheriff was entitled to immunity, and the plaintiff failed to establish the elements of her claim. … Jones argued that there was no qualified immunity in this case because there was no claim against an individual; the case involved “a direct claim against the [S]tate for negligence.”

Mendoza v. Anne Arundel County, Maryland

District Court, D. Maryland · Mar 22, 2024

of their conduct was ‘clearly established at the time.’” … “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

Verizon Maryland Inc. v. RCN Telecom Services, Inc.

232 F. Supp. 2d 539 · District Court, D. Maryland · Nov 19, 2002

The commissioners of the PSC, however, assert two constitutional bars to Verizon’s suit whose nature is less obvious: sovereign immunity (“exemplified,” if not “established,” by the Eleventh Amendment, see Alden v. … Daw, 201 F.3d 521 , 524 n. 2 (4th Cir.2000)(noting that the Fourth Circuit has not clearly determined whether a dismissal grounded in sovereign immunity operates as a dismissal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction or for

(1996)

81 Op. Att'y Gen. 121 · Maryland Attorney General Reports · Sep 13, 1996

Tort Claims Act immunity extends to some volunteers. … In addition, an official may have a qualified immunity, depending on the scope of discretionary powers and "depending on all the circumstances that may be revealed by evidence." 416 U.S. at 240 .