Case law

Trageser v. Gray

9 L.R.A. 780 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Dec 5, 1890

A Board was established, consisting of three commissioners, invested with the power of granting licenses to sell these liquors by retail. … This was most clearly evident, not only from the statutes and ordinances themselves, hut from the Article in the Constitution of California, under which they were framed.

Francis v. Johnson

219 Md. App. 531 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Oct 6, 2014

(2) A local government may not assert governmental or sovereign immunity to avoid the duty to defend or indemnify an employee established in this subsection. … This Court recently explained the evidence required to support a finding of malice as follows: “In the qualified immunity context, the Court of Appeals [has] affirmed that ‘malice’ has an ‘actual malice’ meaning

Price v. Collins

122 Md. 109 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Dec 6, 1913

established than that Courts of equity will not interfere by injunction to determine questions concerning the appointment or election of public officers or their title to office, such questions being of a purely legal nature … The law upon the question here involved is strongly and clearly stated — In re Sawyer, 124 U.

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.

Garcia v. Angulo

335 Md. 475 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jul 15, 1994

The term “qualified person” in Art. 48A, § 243L(e) is derived from Md.Code (1957), Art. … Cases decided under the predecessor statute have established that “resident of this State” in the definition of “qualified person” means a domiciliary of Maryland. See Hawks v.

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.

El-Haggan v. Board of Education for Montgomery County

District Court, D. Maryland · Jul 16, 2025

immunity; (4) Plaintiff El-Haggan cannot allege a clearly established First Amendment right to defeat qualified immunity; and (5) Plaintiffs Robinson and Wolf can neither overcome Pickering’s balancing test, nor demonstrate … a clearly established constitutional right.

McClanahan v. Washington County Department of Social Services

445 Md. 691 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Dec 22, 2015

The court also found that Mother had failed to preserve her arguments that she was immune from liability by making a good faith report of child abuse, that Munson and Zuskin were not qualified as experts, and that Munson’ … The court also concluded that Mother had failed to preserve the privilege and immunity issues. Id. at 283-86 , 96 A.3d at 931-33 .

Black v. Alexander

District Court, D. Maryland · Jan 18, 2022

Qualified immunity is an affirmative defense that shields government officials from liability for civil damages in a Section 1983 suit as long as “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … Denying the officer qualified immunity, the court reasoned that “years before 1999, it was clearly established that a police officer was not entitled to use unnecessary, gratuitous, and disproportionate force against a

Montgomery County v. Anastasi

77 Md. App. 126 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Nov 4, 1988

The lists classified applicants as either “qualified” or by the more superior rating of “well qualified”, depending on their numerical score. Each of the appellees scored in the “well qualified” category. … ‘well qualified’ or ‘qualified’ ... the promotional list will be used to fill vacancies____” This notice was supplemented, for candidates for Master Police Officer, by a letter of January 2, 1986, which provided that “the

Robinson v. Washington County Board of Education

District Court, D. Maryland · Oct 12, 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).

Dahl v. Brunswick Corp.

277 Md. 471 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · May 13, 1976

for severance pay under the former he would necessarily also qualify under the latter, and every time a worker failed to qualify under the former he would necessarily also fail to qualify under the latter. … as an express agreement; but such facts and circumstances, when shown, must be such to establish that the intention to work a novation is clearly implied.

Hobbs v. Baltimore County Executive

District Court, D. Maryland · Jul 18, 2023

conduct 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.

Newman v. Giant Food, Inc.

187 F. Supp. 2d 524 · District Court, D. Maryland · Feb 20, 2002

Giant’s policy clearly states that employees caught fighting on Giant grounds are subject to immediate termination, regardless of provocation. … To qualify as an adverse action, an employer’s action must “adversely affect[ ] the ‘terms, conditions, or benefits’ of [the plaintiffs] employment.” Von Cunten v.

Rohrbeck v. Rohrbeck

318 Md. 28 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Dec 6, 1989

The Congressional concern was clearly reflected in the various House and Senate Committee Reports on the REA. … The law requires each plan to establish “reasonable procedures to determine the qualified status of domestic relations orders and to administer distributions under such qualified orders.” 29 U.S.C. § 1056 (d)(3)(G)(ii); 26

Maddox, Jr. v. The Parole Commission of Maryland and its Agents

District Court, D. Maryland · May 25, 2023

In the alternative, Defendants argue that even if Maddox stated a constitutional claim, they are entitled to qualified immunity because they did not violate any clearly established statutory or constitutional right of which … “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

Fried v. Archer

139 Md. App. 229 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jul 3, 2001

After concluding that the officer had qualified public official immunity from liability for non-malicious acts, the Court held that dismissal of the negligence claim against the officer also was appropriate because the officer … Reliance is critical to establishing a special duty.

Younger v. Green

District Court, D. Maryland · Feb 17, 2021

Qualified Immunity Crowder also argues that he is entitled to qualified immunity because his conduct did not violate any clearly established right of Plaintiff Younger. … “Qualified immunity shields government officials from liability in a § 1983 suit as long as their conduct has not violated ‘clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have

Barnes v. State, Ex Rel. Pinkney

236 Md. 564 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Nov 17, 1964

They facilitate checking of *572 the petitions by interested persons to ensure that only qualified persons have signed. Similar provisions have been upheld as reasonable in other jurisdictions. Shields v. Wells, 65 S. … Section 169 is clearly designed to provide additional means by which fraudulent or otherwise improper signatures upon a referendum petition may be detected.

Kearney v. France

222 Md. App. 542 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Apr 29, 2015

In regard to appellee’s claim of sovereign immunity, we agree with appellant. … In sum, the award of back pay is not barred by sovereign immunity.