Case law

McAdoo v. Toll

591 F. Supp. 1399 · District Court, D. Maryland · Aug 7, 1984

They argue that, in order to establish a prima facie case for discrimination in a rejection of an employment application, a plaintiff must show: ... … In establishing a prima facie case of racially discriminatory treatment in violation of Title VII, a plaintiff must show by a preponderance of the evidence that he applied for an open position for which he was qualified,

Neal

District Court, D. Maryland · Nov 17, 2025

Qualified immunity “typically involves two inquiries: (1) whether the plaintiff has established the violation of a constitutional right, and (2) whether that right was clearly established at the time of the alleged … “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.” Id. (citations omitted).

Cain v. Rock

67 F. Supp. 2d 544 · District Court, D. Maryland · Oct 14, 1999

Likewise, Cain has failed to establish fault on behalf of the County. … In contrast to certain government officials, municipalities do not enjoy qualified or absolute immunity from suit under § 1983. Leatherman v. Tarrant Cty.

Brown v. State of Maryland

District Court, D. Maryland · Oct 8, 2025

Qualified immunity shields a government official from civil damages in a § 1983 action if the official’s conduct does not violate clearly established law. Bland v. Roberts, 730 F.3d 368, 391 (4th Cir. 2013). … In determining whether an official is entitled to qualified immunity, a court must consider (1) whether the official violated the plaintiff’s constitutional right and (2) whether the right was clearly established at the

Gbenoba v. Montgomery County Department of Health & Human Services

209 F. Supp. 2d 572 · District Court, D. Maryland · Jul 23, 2002

The plaintiff has established a prima facie case of discrimination with respect to ten of the eleven promotional opportunities about which he complains. Clearly, in all instances, Mr. … Under such circumstances, the plaintiff clearly cannot establish that he applied for an open position, and therefore he has failed to establish a prima facie case.

In re Ryan W.

434 Md. 577 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Sep 26, 2013

The Circuit Court agreed with Ryan’s contentions, leading to establishment of the constructive trust and subsequent appellate scrutiny of that judgment. … The regulation cited, however, does not clearly indicate that such a situation is pertinent to the rule set forth in subsection (b).

WBAL-TV Div., Hearst Corp. v. State

300 Md. 233 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jul 12, 1984

The Court has emphasized that ‘[t]he publisher of a newspaper has no special immunity from the application of general laws----’ Associated Press v. … The summons issued to WBAL sought one specific and clearly identified piece of evidence; it did not seek to rummage through the files of a news organization on a fishing expedition.

Palmont v. Wright

District Court, D. Maryland · Dec 1, 2020

Qualified immunity provides government officials with a shield from liability for civil damages so long as the conduct at issue was a discretionary function, and insofar as the conduct did not “violate clearly established … A government official is entitled to qualified immunity unless: “(1) the allegations, if true, substantiate a violation of a federal statutory or constitutional right and (2) the right was ‘clearly established’ such that

Smith v. Stephan

66 Md. 381 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jan 4, 1887

The distinction is clearly made in the Constitution between Federal and State elections on one side, and municipal elections on the other. It is impossible to mistake the meaning of the terms employed. … In a bill in equity filed against it, if the averment that the City of Westminster is not in debt can be established, it will follow that the issue of the bonds authorized on the assumption of such indebtedness must be enjoined

Krell v. Braightmeyer

District Court, D. Maryland · Jan 27, 2020

Stay at 6, ECF No. 90-1)), others appear to focus on legal issues (e.g., Defendants’ argument that there is no “clearly established law” that a “condition that has been ongoing for years” can serve as the basis of a … TWI Pharm., (exercising jurisdiction over an interlocutory appeal that raised qualified immunity and state immunity arguments).

Williams v. Prince George's County, MD

157 F. Supp. 2d 596 · District Court, D. Maryland · Aug 6, 2001

In other words, if there clearly exist factual issues “that properly can be resolved only by a finder of fact because they may reasonably be resolved in favor of either party,” then summary judgment is inappropriate. … Thus, he has not established an essential element of the tort, and his claim fails. E.

Rorie v. Board of Education of Charles County

District Court, D. Maryland · Sep 21, 2021

Where Rorie’s race discrimination claim is likewise grounded in the clearly established right to be free from racially discriminatory discipline, Hill and Hollstein are not entitled to qualified immunity from Rorie’s § … Based on the allegations in the Amended Complaint, dismissal based on qualified immunity is not warranted because Rorie has asserted a violation of a clearly established right and has provided sufficient allegations

Bandy v. Clancy

449 Md. 577 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Aug 24, 2016

(b) That the Executor and trustee shall not have any rights, powers, privileges, duties, authority, immunities, or discretion, given by any other provision of this, my Last Will and Testament, if or to the extent that such … Clancy, however, clearly intended, by the establishment of the QTIP Trust, to benefit Mrs. Clancy to the detriment of the Younger Child, whose remainder could be diminished by Mrs. Clancy’s invasion of corpus for need.

Chung Shin v. Shalala

166 F. Supp. 2d 373 · District Court, D. Maryland · Apr 13, 2001

Instead the Plaintiff has attempted to establish a claim of discrimination through circumstantial evidence. … Plaintiff was clearly qualified for the position as shown by the certifícate of eli-gibles prepared by Defendant for the job opening.

Orellana v. United States of America

District Court, D. Maryland · Sep 25, 2023

Clearly Established Right As for whether the right at issue was clearly established at the time of this incident, in considering whether a right is “clearly established,” the Court considers whether “the contours … established at the time of this incident, the Court must deny summary judgment on the issue of qualified immunity, IV.

United States v. Shacter

293 F. Supp. 1057 · District Court, D. Maryland · Dec 12, 1968

qualified for exemption. … The defendant’s early religious training, including instruction by his mother in the principles of conscientious objection, has been clearly established.

Northern Health Facilities, Inc. v. United States

39 F. Supp. 2d 563 · District Court, D. Maryland · Dec 28, 1998

To qualify for reimbursement, a facility must be certified to participate in the programs. … Further, the State argues that it has not consented to be sued, and Congress has not clearly and unequivocally expressed an intent to abrogate its sovereign immunity in the Medicaid statute.

Boeh v. Dail

District Court, D. Maryland · Sep 12, 2025

At summary judgment, the availability of qualified immunity turns on (1) whether a plaintiff has established a violation of a constitutional right and (2) whether that right was “clearly established” at the time of the … “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.” Id.

Jones v. State of Maryland

District Court, D. Maryland · Jan 28, 2020

Qualified immunity analysis involves two questions: (1) whether a constitutional violation occurred and (2) whether the right violated was clearly established. … Jones fails to allege the violation of a clearly established Eighth Amendment right and Defendant Fisher is entitled to qualified immunity.4 In light of the foregoing, the court need

Plank v. Summers

205 Md. 598 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Dec 13, 1954

Clearly, if the value claimed was unreasonable by comparison with the usual charges made for similar services, the defendant should be entitled to produce evidence tending to disprove or minimize the claim. … It may be doubted whether the witness had been sufficiently qualified to express an opinion on a surgical *607 matter.