5 Maryland opinions name it 2 courts 1970–2026 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Maryland courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Ashburn v. Anne Arundel Countygreen2 sentences2001See, e.g., Ashburn, 306 Md. at 626 , 510 A.2d 1078 (special duty rule provided alternative to public official immunity as grounds for dismissal); Lauer v. City of New York, 95 N.Y.2d 95 , 711 N.Y.S.2d 112 , 733 N.E.2d 184, 187 (2000) (fact that governmental act complained of was ministerial “ ‘merely removes the issue of governmental immunity from a given case,’ ” but does not necessarily make the act tortious) (citations omitted). 2001See, e.g., Ashburn, 306 Md. at 626 , 510 A.2d 1078 (special duty rule provided alternative to public official immunity as grounds for dismissal); Lauer v. City of New York, 95 N.Y.2d 95 , 711 N.Y.S.2d 112 , 733 N.E.2d 184, 187 (2000) (fact that governmental act complained of was ministerial “ ‘merely removes the issue of governmental immunity from a given case,’ ” but does not necessarily make the act tortious) (citations omitted). | 1 | 1 |
Lauer v. City of New Yorkgreen2 sentences2001See, e.g., Ashburn, 306 Md. at 626 , 510 A.2d 1078 (special duty rule provided alternative to public official immunity as grounds for dismissal); Lauer v. City of New York, 95 N.Y.2d 95 , 711 N.Y.S.2d 112 , 733 N.E.2d 184, 187 (2000) (fact that governmental act complained of was ministerial “ ‘merely removes the issue of governmental immunity from a given case,’ ” but does not necessarily make the act tortious) (citations omitted). 2001See, e.g., Ashburn, 306 Md. at 626 , 510 A.2d 1078 (special duty rule provided alternative to public official immunity as grounds for dismissal); Lauer v. City of New York, 95 N.Y.2d 95 , 711 N.Y.S.2d 112 , 733 N.E.2d 184, 187 (2000) (fact that governmental act complained of was ministerial “ ‘merely removes the issue of governmental immunity from a given case,’ ” but does not necessarily make the act tortious) (citations omitted). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Maryland. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Tadjer v. Montgomery County
green
2 sentences2026In explaining the issue before us, we stated that the “petition for certiorari is limited to the issue of governmental immunity[,]” and, therefore, our discussion would be “limited to that issue and the conflict between the concepts of governmental and proprietary functions.” Id. 2026And our opinion made it clear that “[t]he petition for certiorari [was] limited to the issue of governmental immunity[]” and, therefore, our discussion would be “limited to that issue and the conflict between concepts of governmental and proprietary functions.” Id. at 545 . | 2 | 1985–2026 |
Board of Education v. Alcrymat Corp. of America
green
2 sentences1971Supp.), Art. 43, § 556A which provides : “No hospital or related institution as defined in this sub *559 title shall be immune from liability for negligence or any other tort on the grounds that it is a charitable institution; provided, however, that a hospital or related institution which is a charitable institution and which is insured against such liability in an amount not less than $100,000 shall not be liable for damages in excess of the limits of such, insurance.” In Bd. of Education v. Alcrymat Corp., 258 Md. 508 , 266 A. 2d 349 (1970), we held on the issue of governmental immunity whe 1971Supp.), Art. 43, § 556A which provides : “No hospital or related institution as defined in this sub *559 title shall be immune from liability for negligence or any other tort on the grounds that it is a charitable institution; provided, however, that a hospital or related institution which is a charitable institution and which is insured against such liability in an amount not less than $100,000 shall not be liable for damages in excess of the limits of such, insurance.” In Bd. of Education v. Alcrymat Corp., 258 Md. 508 , 266 A. 2d 349 (1970), we held on the issue of governmental immunity whe | 1 | 1971–1971 |
Eliason v. Funk
green
2 sentences1970In Eliason v. Funk, 233 Md. 351 , 196 A. 2d 887 (1964) we noted that the Committee Note to Rule 323 stated: “While the defense of governmental immunity rests on a different basis from that of charitable immunity, it is believed that there are equally persuasive reasons requiring that the defense be raised and its validity determined at an early stage in the proceedings.” We held, however, that Rule 323 b only applied to governmental agencies eo nomine and was not applicable to a suit against public officers for an alleged conspiracy to cause the plaintiffs’ removal from the classified service, 1970In Eliason v. Funk, 233 Md. 351 , 196 A. 2d 887 (1964) we noted that the Committee Note to Rule 323 stated: “While the defense of governmental immunity rests on a different basis from that of charitable immunity, it is believed that there are equally persuasive reasons requiring that the defense be raised and its validity determined at an early stage in the proceedings.” We held, however, that Rule 323 b only applied to governmental agencies eo nomine and was not applicable to a suit against public officers for an alleged conspiracy to cause the plaintiffs’ removal from the classified service, | 1 | 1970–1970 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.