Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
5 Maryland opinions name it 2 courts 2002–2012 0 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 sentences2012The doctrine of common law public official immunity provides that a person “roll be relieved of liability for his non-malicious acts where: (1) he ‘is a public official rather than a mere government employee or agent; and (2) his tortious conduct occurred while he was performing discretionary, as opposed to ministerial, acts in furtherance of his official duties.’ ” Williams v. Mayor & City Council of Baltimore, 359 Md. 101, 137 , 753 A.2d 41 (2000) (quoting Ashburn v. Anne Arundel County, 306 Md. 617, 622 , 510 A.2d 1078 (1986)). 2012The doctrine of common law public official immunity provides that a person “roll be relieved of liability for his non-malicious acts where: (1) he ‘is a public official rather than a mere government employee or agent; and (2) his tortious conduct occurred while he was performing discretionary, as opposed to ministerial, acts in furtherance of his official duties.’ ” Williams v. Mayor & City Council of Baltimore, 359 Md. 101, 137 , 753 A.2d 41 (2000) (quoting Ashburn v. Anne Arundel County, 306 Md. 617, 622 , 510 A.2d 1078 (1986)). | 1 | 2 |
Williams v. Mayor of Baltimoregreen2 sentences2012The doctrine of common law public official immunity provides that a person “roll be relieved of liability for his non-malicious acts where: (1) he ‘is a public official rather than a mere government employee or agent; and (2) his tortious conduct occurred while he was performing discretionary, as opposed to ministerial, acts in furtherance of his official duties.’ ” Williams v. Mayor & City Council of Baltimore, 359 Md. 101, 137 , 753 A.2d 41 (2000) (quoting Ashburn v. Anne Arundel County, 306 Md. 617, 622 , 510 A.2d 1078 (1986)). 2012The doctrine of common law public official immunity provides that a person “roll be relieved of liability for his non-malicious acts where: (1) he ‘is a public official rather than a mere government employee or agent; and (2) his tortious conduct occurred while he was performing discretionary, as opposed to ministerial, acts in furtherance of his official duties.’ ” Williams v. Mayor & City Council of Baltimore, 359 Md. 101, 137 , 753 A.2d 41 (2000) (quoting Ashburn v. Anne Arundel County, 306 Md. 617, 622 , 510 A.2d 1078 (1986)). | 1 | 2 |
Lovelace v. Andersongreen2 sentences2004This Court has "pointed out that the purpose of these provisions ‘was to codify existing public official immunity, and not to extend the scope of qualified immunity beyond its Maryland common law boundaries.' " Lovelace v. Anderson, 366 Md. 690, 704 , 785 A.2d 726, 734 (2001), quoting Ashton v. Brown, 339 Md. 70 , 116 n. 23, 660 A.2d 447 , 470 n. 23 (1995). 3 . 2004This Court has "pointed out that the purpose of these provisions ‘was to codify existing public official immunity, and not to extend the scope of qualified immunity beyond its Maryland common law boundaries.' " Lovelace v. Anderson, 366 Md. 690, 704 , 785 A.2d 726, 734 (2001), quoting Ashton v. Brown, 339 Md. 70 , 116 n. 23, 660 A.2d 447 , 470 n. 23 (1995). 3 . | 1 | 2 |
James v. Prince George's Countygreen2 sentences2005Ashbum v. Anne Arundel County, 306 Md. 617, 622 , 510 A.2d 1078, 1080 (1986) (quoting James v. Prince George’s County, 288 Md. 315, 323 , 418 A.2d 1173, 1178 (1980)) (emphasis omitted). 2005Ashbum v. Anne Arundel County, 306 Md. 617, 622 , 510 A.2d 1078, 1080 (1986) (quoting James v. Prince George’s County, 288 Md. 315, 323 , 418 A.2d 1173, 1178 (1980)) (emphasis omitted). | 1 | 1 |
Housing Authority v. Bennettgreen2 sentences2002See CJ § 5-302; CJ § 5-303; Lovelace v. Anderson, 366 Md. 690, 707 , 785 A.2d 726 (2001); Ashton, 339 Md. at 104 , 107-08 & n. 19, 660 A.2d 447 ; see also Housing Auth. of Baltimore City v. Bennett, 359 Md. 356, 362 , 754 A.2d 367 (2000)(reviewing effect of LGTCA on claims against local government employee); DiPino v. Davis, 354 Md. 18, 49-50 , 729 A.2d 354 (1999)(same). 2002See CJ § 5-302; CJ § 5-303; Lovelace v. Anderson, 366 Md. 690, 707 , 785 A.2d 726 (2001); Ashton, 339 Md. at 104 , 107-08 & n. 19, 660 A.2d 447 ; see also Housing Auth. of Baltimore City v. Bennett, 359 Md. 356, 362 , 754 A.2d 367 (2000)(reviewing effect of LGTCA on claims against local government employee); DiPino v. Davis, 354 Md. 18, 49-50 , 729 A.2d 354 (1999)(same). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Maryland. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Attorney Grievance Commission v. Henley
green
2 sentences2004This Court has "pointed out that the purpose of these provisions ‘was to codify existing public official immunity, and not to extend the scope of qualified immunity beyond its Maryland common law boundaries.' " Lovelace v. Anderson, 366 Md. 690, 704 , 785 A.2d 726, 734 (2001), quoting Ashton v. Brown, 339 Md. 70 , 116 n. 23, 660 A.2d 447 , 470 n. 23 (1995). 3 . 2002See CJ § 5-302; CJ § 5-303; Lovelace v. Anderson, 366 Md. 690, 707 , 785 A.2d 726 (2001); Ashton, 339 Md. at 104 , 107-08 & n. 19, 660 A.2d 447 ; see also Housing Auth. of Baltimore City v. Bennett, 359 Md. 356, 362 , 754 A.2d 367 (2000)(reviewing effect of LGTCA on claims against local government employee); DiPino v. Davis, 354 Md. 18, 49-50 , 729 A.2d 354 (1999)(same). | 2 | 2002–2004 |
Ashton v. Brown
green
2 sentences2004This Court has "pointed out that the purpose of these provisions ‘was to codify existing public official immunity, and not to extend the scope of qualified immunity beyond its Maryland common law boundaries.' " Lovelace v. Anderson, 366 Md. 690, 704 , 785 A.2d 726, 734 (2001), quoting Ashton v. Brown, 339 Md. 70 , 116 n. 23, 660 A.2d 447 , 470 n. 23 (1995). 3 . 2002See CJ § 5-302; CJ § 5-303; Lovelace v. Anderson, 366 Md. 690, 707 , 785 A.2d 726 (2001); Ashton, 339 Md. at 104 , 107-08 & n. 19, 660 A.2d 447 ; see also Housing Auth. of Baltimore City v. Bennett, 359 Md. 356, 362 , 754 A.2d 367 (2000)(reviewing effect of LGTCA on claims against local government employee); DiPino v. Davis, 354 Md. 18, 49-50 , 729 A.2d 354 (1999)(same). | 2 | 2002–2004 |
DiPino v. Davis
green
2 sentences2002See CJ § 5-302; CJ § 5-303; Lovelace v. Anderson, 366 Md. 690, 707 , 785 A.2d 726 (2001); Ashton, 339 Md. at 104 , 107-08 & n. 19, 660 A.2d 447 ; see also Housing Auth. of Baltimore City v. Bennett, 359 Md. 356, 362 , 754 A.2d 367 (2000)(reviewing effect of LGTCA on claims against local government employee); DiPino v. Davis, 354 Md. 18, 49-50 , 729 A.2d 354 (1999)(same). 2002See CJ § 5-302; CJ § 5-303; Lovelace v. Anderson, 366 Md. 690, 707 , 785 A.2d 726 (2001); Ashton, 339 Md. at 104 , 107-08 & n. 19, 660 A.2d 447 ; see also Housing Auth. of Baltimore City v. Bennett, 359 Md. 356, 362 , 754 A.2d 367 (2000)(reviewing effect of LGTCA on claims against local government employee); DiPino v. Davis, 354 Md. 18, 49-50 , 729 A.2d 354 (1999)(same). | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
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.