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.
17 Maryland opinions name it 2 courts 1976–2026 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 |
|---|---|---|
American Structures, Inc. v. Mayor of Baltimoregreen2 sentences1994“If an action is brought for a money judgment in contract or in tort against the State or an agency of the State without the State’s consent, actual or implied, it must be defended on the ground of sovereign immunity, which cannot be waived unless funds have been appropriated for the purpose or the agency can provide funds by taxation.... ” American Structures v. City of Baltimore, 278 Md. 356, 359 , 364 A.2d 55 (1976) (citations omitted). ... 1994“If an action is brought for a money judgment in contract or in tort against the State or an agency of the State without the State’s consent, actual or implied, it must be defended on the ground of sovereign immunity, which cannot be waived unless funds have been appropriated for the purpose or the agency can provide funds by taxation.... ” American Structures v. City of Baltimore, 278 Md. 356, 359 , 364 A.2d 55 (1976) (citations omitted). ... | 2 | 5 |
Jekofsky v. State Roads Commissiongreen2 sentences1976If an action is brought for a money judgment in contract or in tort against the State or an agency of the State without the State’s consent, actual or implied, it must be defended on the ground of sovereign immunity, which cannot be waived unless funds have been appropriated for the purpose or the agency can provide funds by taxation, Calvert Associates Limited Partnership v. Department of Employment & Social Services, 277 Md. 372 , 357 A. 2d 839 (1976); Charles Brohawm & Bros. v. Board of Trustees of Chesapeake College, 269 Md. 164 , 304 A. 2d 819 (1973); Jekofsky v. State Roads Comm’n, 264 M 1976If an action is brought for a money judgment in contract or in tort against the State or an agency of the State without the State’s consent, actual or implied, it must be defended on the ground of sovereign immunity, which cannot be waived unless funds have been appropriated for the purpose or the agency can provide funds by taxation, Calvert Associates Limited Partnership v. Department of Employment & Social Services, 277 Md. 372 , 357 A. 2d 839 (1976); Charles Brohawm & Bros. v. Board of Trustees of Chesapeake College, 269 Md. 164 , 304 A. 2d 819 (1973); Jekofsky v. State Roads Comm’n, 264 M | 2 | 4 |
Board of Trustees v. John K. Ruff, Inc.green2 sentences1999Ruff, Inc., 278 Md. 580, 590 , 366 A.2d 360, 366 (1976), “that when the General Assembly expressly authorizes suits to be brought against one of the State’s agencies, it is the giving of a positive consent and has the effect of waiving sovereign immunity as to that agency within its scope of duties and obligations.” Moreover, we have stated “[i]f an action is brought for a money judgment in contract or in tort against the State or an agency of the State without the State’s consent, actual or implied, it must be *334 defended on the ground of sovereign immunity, which cannot be waived unless fu 1999Ruff, Inc., 278 Md. 580, 590 , 366 A.2d 360, 366 (1976), “that when the General Assembly expressly authorizes suits to be brought against one of the State’s agencies, it is the giving of a positive consent and has the effect of waiving sovereign immunity as to that agency within its scope of duties and obligations.” Moreover, we have stated “[i]f an action is brought for a money judgment in contract or in tort against the State or an agency of the State without the State’s consent, actual or implied, it must be *334 defended on the ground of sovereign immunity, which cannot be waived unless fu | 2 | 3 |
Lizzi v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authoritygreen2 sentences2004App. at 6 , 845 A.2d at 63 (alteration added). 2004At a later hearing on March 29, 2002, the circuit court dismissed Count III (Maryland Constitution claim) of petitioner’s complaint as being barred by both sovereign immunity and res judicata. 5 *205 On appeal to the Court of Special Appeals, the court was “asked to decide whether the circuit court correctly dismissed all three counts of [petitioner’s] complaint on the ground of res judicata and, insofar as Count III is concerned, the additional ground of sovereign immunity.” Lizzi v. WMATA, 156 Md. | 1 | 1 |
Ex Parte Youngred2 sentences2003See also Dalton v. Little Rock Family Planning Services, 516 U.S. 474 , 116 S.Ct. 1063 , 134 L.Ed.2d 115 (1996).” See also, e.g., Cardenas v. Anzai, 311 F.3d 929, 934-938 (9th Cir.2002) (An action which was identical to the case at bar, and the United States Court of Appeals held that, “[b]ecause the plaintiffs seek to remedy an [alleged] ongoing violation of federal law, their claims fall squarely within the Ex parte Young[, 209 U.S. 123 , 28 S.Ct. 441 , 52 L.Ed. 714 ] doctrine,” and “[w]e thus conclude that the plaintiffs’ suit is not barred by sovereign immunity”); Harris v. Owens, 264 F.3d 2003See also Dalton v. Little Rock Family Planning Services, 516 U.S. 474 , 116 S.Ct. 1063 , 134 L.Ed.2d 115 (1996).” See also, e.g., Cardenas v. Anzai, 311 F.3d 929, 934-938 (9th Cir.2002) (An action which was identical to the case at bar, and the United States Court of Appeals held that, “[b]ecause the plaintiffs seek to remedy an [alleged] ongoing violation of federal law, their claims fall squarely within the Ex parte Young[, 209 U.S. 123 , 28 S.Ct. 441 , 52 L.Ed. 714 ] doctrine,” and “[w]e thus conclude that the plaintiffs’ suit is not barred by sovereign immunity”); Harris v. Owens, 264 F.3d | 1 | 1 |
Dalton v. Little Rock Family Planning Servicesgreen2 sentences2003See also Dalton v. Little Rock Family Planning Services, 516 U.S. 474 , 116 S.Ct. 1063 , 134 L.Ed.2d 115 (1996).” See also, e.g., Cardenas v. Anzai, 311 F.3d 929, 934-938 (9th Cir.2002) (An action which was identical to the case at bar, and the United States Court of Appeals held that, “[b]ecause the plaintiffs seek to remedy an [alleged] ongoing violation of federal law, their claims fall squarely within the Ex parte Young[, 209 U.S. 123 , 28 S.Ct. 441 , 52 L.Ed. 714 ] doctrine,” and “[w]e thus conclude that the plaintiffs’ suit is not barred by sovereign immunity”); Harris v. Owens, 264 F.3d 2003See also Dalton v. Little Rock Family Planning Services, 516 U.S. 474 , 116 S.Ct. 1063 , 134 L.Ed.2d 115 (1996).” See also, e.g., Cardenas v. Anzai, 311 F.3d 929, 934-938 (9th Cir.2002) (An action which was identical to the case at bar, and the United States Court of Appeals held that, “[b]ecause the plaintiffs seek to remedy an [alleged] ongoing violation of federal law, their claims fall squarely within the Ex parte Young[, 209 U.S. 123 , 28 S.Ct. 441 , 52 L.Ed. 714 ] doctrine,” and “[w]e thus conclude that the plaintiffs’ suit is not barred by sovereign immunity”); Harris v. Owens, 264 F.3d | 1 | 1 |
Cardenas v. Anzaigreen1 sentence2003See also Dalton v. Little Rock Family Planning Services, 516 U.S. 474 , 116 S.Ct. 1063 , 134 L.Ed.2d 115 (1996).” See also, e.g., Cardenas v. Anzai, 311 F.3d 929, 934-938 (9th Cir.2002) (An action which was identical to the case at bar, and the United States Court of Appeals held that, “[b]ecause the plaintiffs seek to remedy an [alleged] ongoing violation of federal law, their claims fall squarely within the Ex parte Young[, 209 U.S. 123 , 28 S.Ct. 441 , 52 L.Ed. 714 ] doctrine,” and “[w]e thus conclude that the plaintiffs’ suit is not barred by sovereign immunity”); Harris v. Owens, 264 F.3d | 1 | 1 |
Harris v. Owensgreen1 sentence2003See also Dalton v. Little Rock Family Planning Services, 516 U.S. 474 , 116 S.Ct. 1063 , 134 L.Ed.2d 115 (1996).” See also, e.g., Cardenas v. Anzai, 311 F.3d 929, 934-938 (9th Cir.2002) (An action which was identical to the case at bar, and the United States Court of Appeals held that, “[b]ecause the plaintiffs seek to remedy an [alleged] ongoing violation of federal law, their claims fall squarely within the Ex parte Young[, 209 U.S. 123 , 28 S.Ct. 441 , 52 L.Ed. 714 ] doctrine,” and “[w]e thus conclude that the plaintiffs’ suit is not barred by sovereign immunity”); Harris v. Owens, 264 F.3d | 1 | 1 |
University of Maryland v. Maasgreen2 sentences1976If an action is brought for a money judgment in contract or in tort against the State or an agency of the State without the State’s consent, actual or implied, it must be defended on the ground of sovereign immunity, which cannot be waived unless funds have been appropriated for the purpose or the agency can provide funds by taxation, Calvert Associates Limited Partnership v. Department of Employment & Social Services, 277 Md. 372 , 357 A. 2d 839 (1976); Charles Brohawm & Bros. v. Board of Trustees of Chesapeake College, 269 Md. 164 , 304 A. 2d 819 (1973); Jekofsky v. State Roads Comm’n, 264 M 1976If an action is brought for a money judgment in contract or in tort against the State or an agency of the State without the State’s consent, actual or implied, it must be defended on the ground of sovereign immunity, which cannot be waived unless funds have been appropriated for the purpose or the agency can provide funds by taxation, Calvert Associates Limited Partnership v. Department of Employment & Social Services, 277 Md. 372 , 357 A. 2d 839 (1976); Charles Brohawm & Bros. v. Board of Trustees of Chesapeake College, 269 Md. 164 , 304 A. 2d 819 (1973); Jekofsky v. State Roads Comm’n, 264 M | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Maryland. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Calvert Associates Ltd. Partnership v. Department of Employment & Social Services
green
2 sentences1976If an action is brought for a money judgment in contract or in tort against the State or an agency of the State without the State’s consent, actual or implied, it must be defended on the ground of sovereign immunity, which cannot be waived unless funds have been appropriated for the purpose or the agency can provide funds by taxation, Calvert Associates Limited Partnership v. Department of Employment & Social Services, 277 Md. 372 , 357 A. 2d 839 (1976); Charles Brohawm & Bros. v. Board of Trustees of Chesapeake College, 269 Md. 164 , 304 A. 2d 819 (1973); Jekofsky v. State Roads Comm’n, 264 M 1976If an action is brought for a money judgment in contract or in tort against the State or an agency of the State without the State’s consent, actual or implied, it must be defended on the ground of sovereign immunity, which cannot be waived unless funds have been appropriated for the purpose or the agency can provide funds by taxation, Calvert Associates Limited Partnership v. Department of Employment & Social Services, 277 Md. 372 , 357 A. 2d 839 (1976); Charles Brohawm & Bros. v. Board of Trustees of Chesapeake College, 269 Md. 164 , 304 A. 2d 819 (1973); Jekofsky v. State Roads Comm’n, 264 M | 3 | 1976–1977 |
Charles E. Brohawn & Bros. v. Board of Trustees of Chesapeake College
green
2 sentences1976If an action is brought for a money judgment in contract or in tort against the State or an agency of the State without the State’s consent, actual or implied, it must be defended on the ground of sovereign immunity, which cannot be waived unless funds have been appropriated for the purpose or the agency can provide funds by taxation, Calvert Associates Limited Partnership v. Department of Employment & Social Services, 277 Md. 372 , 357 A. 2d 839 (1976); Charles Brohawm & Bros. v. Board of Trustees of Chesapeake College, 269 Md. 164 , 304 A. 2d 819 (1973); Jekofsky v. State Roads Comm’n, 264 M 1976If an action is brought for a money judgment in contract or in tort against the State or an agency of the State without the State’s consent, actual or implied, it must be defended on the ground of sovereign immunity, which cannot be waived unless funds have been appropriated for the purpose or the agency can provide funds by taxation, Calvert Associates Limited Partnership v. Department of Employment & Social Services, 277 Md. 372 , 357 A. 2d 839 (1976); Charles Brohawm & Bros. v. Board of Trustees of Chesapeake College, 269 Md. 164 , 304 A. 2d 819 (1973); Jekofsky v. State Roads Comm’n, 264 M | 2 | 1976–1977 |
Railroad Co. v. Maryland
green
2 sentences1976If an action is brought for a money judgment in contract or in tort against the State or an agency of the State without the State’s consent, actual or implied, it must be defended on the ground of sovereign immunity, which cannot be waived unless funds have been appropriated for the purpose or the agency can provide funds by taxation, Calvert Associates Limited Partnership v. Department of Employment & Social Services, 277 Md. 372 , 357 A. 2d 839 (1976); Charles Brohawm & Bros. v. Board of Trustees of Chesapeake College, 269 Md. 164 , 304 A. 2d 819 (1973); Jekofsky v. State Roads Comm’n, 264 M 1976Co., 34 Md. 344 (1871), aff'd, 21 Wall. 456 (1875) to Calvert Associates v. Department, 277 Md. 372 , 357 A. 2d 839 (1976), was set out in American Structures v. City of Balto., 278 Md. 356, 359 , 364 A. 2d 55, 56 (1976): “If an action is brought for a money judgment in contract or in tort against the State or an agency of the State without the State’s consent, actual or implied, it must be defended on the ground of sovereign immunity, which cannot be waived unless funds had been appropriated for the purpose or the agency can provide funds by taxation....” The frequent and increasingly vigorou | 2 | 1976–1976 |
State v. Baltimore & Ohio Railroad
green
2 sentences1976If an action is brought for a money judgment in contract or in tort against the State or an agency of the State without the State’s consent, actual or implied, it must be defended on the ground of sovereign immunity, which cannot be waived unless funds have been appropriated for the purpose or the agency can provide funds by taxation, Calvert Associates Limited Partnership v. Department of Employment & Social Services, 277 Md. 372 , 357 A. 2d 839 (1976); Charles Brohawm & Bros. v. Board of Trustees of Chesapeake College, 269 Md. 164 , 304 A. 2d 819 (1973); Jekofsky v. State Roads Comm’n, 264 M 1976Co., 34 Md. 344 (1871), aff'd, 21 Wall. 456 (1875) to Calvert Associates v. Department, 277 Md. 372 , 357 A. 2d 839 (1976), was set out in American Structures v. City of Balto., 278 Md. 356, 359 , 364 A. 2d 55, 56 (1976): “If an action is brought for a money judgment in contract or in tort against the State or an agency of the State without the State’s consent, actual or implied, it must be defended on the ground of sovereign immunity, which cannot be waived unless funds had been appropriated for the purpose or the agency can provide funds by taxation....” The frequent and increasingly vigorou | 2 | 1976–1976 |
Dawkins v. Baltimore City Police Department
green
1 sentence2026Dawkins, 376 Md. at 54 . | 1 | 2026–2026 |
Lizzi v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority
green
2 sentences2017Id. at 205 , 862 A.2d at 1021 . 2017Id. at 205 , 862 A.2d at 1021 . | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority v. Barksdale-Showell
green
1 sentence2012The trial judge ruled that WMATA was immune for suit for “the negligent inspection, maintenance, and repair claim,” Id. at 20 , but not for the alleged failure to warn claim. | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Frankel v. Board of Regents
green
2 sentences2006The students alleged that pursuant to Frankel v. Bd. of Regents, Ed. § 12-104(b) waived governmental immunity in all “actions concerning matters within the scope of the governmental agency’s duties and obligations.” Stern, 380 Md. at 712 , 846 A.2d 996 (quoting Frankel v. Bd. of Regents, 361 Md. 298, 310 , 761 A.2d 324 (2000) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted)). 2006The students alleged that pursuant to Frankel v. Bd. of Regents, Ed. § 12-104(b) waived governmental immunity in all “actions concerning matters within the scope of the governmental agency’s duties and obligations.” Stern, 380 Md. at 712 , 846 A.2d 996 (quoting Frankel v. Bd. of Regents, 361 Md. 298, 310 , 761 A.2d 324 (2000) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted)). | 1 | 2006–2006 |
Stern v. Board of Regents
green
2 sentences2006The students alleged that pursuant to Frankel v. Bd. of Regents, Ed. § 12-104(b) waived governmental immunity in all “actions concerning matters within the scope of the governmental agency’s duties and obligations.” Stern, 380 Md. at 712 , 846 A.2d 996 (quoting Frankel v. Bd. of Regents, 361 Md. 298, 310 , 761 A.2d 324 (2000) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted)). 2006The students alleged that pursuant to Frankel v. Bd. of Regents, Ed. § 12-104(b) waived governmental immunity in all “actions concerning matters within the scope of the governmental agency’s duties and obligations.” Stern, 380 Md. at 712 , 846 A.2d 996 (quoting Frankel v. Bd. of Regents, 361 Md. 298, 310 , 761 A.2d 324 (2000) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted)). | 1 | 2006–2006 |
Lizzi v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority
neutral
2 sentences2005Although we did not grant certiorari on the res judicata issue, we held nevertheless that Lizzi’s FMLA claim was barred by the res judicata effect of the Fourth Circuit’s decision in Lizzi v. Alexander, 255 F.3d 128 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 1081 , 122 S.Ct. 812 , 151 L.Ed.2d 697 (2002), *105 reh’g denied, 585 U.S. 952 , 122 S.Ct. 1352 , 152 L.Ed.2d 254 (2002). 2005Although we did not grant certiorari on the res judicata issue, we held nevertheless that Lizzi’s FMLA claim was barred by the res judicata effect of the Fourth Circuit’s decision in Lizzi v. Alexander, 255 F.3d 128 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 1081 , 122 S.Ct. 812 , 151 L.Ed.2d 697 (2002), *105 reh’g denied, 585 U.S. 952 , 122 S.Ct. 1352 , 152 L.Ed.2d 254 (2002). | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Lizzi v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority
green
2 sentences2005Although we did not grant certiorari on the res judicata issue, we held nevertheless that Lizzi’s FMLA claim was barred by the res judicata effect of the Fourth Circuit’s decision in Lizzi v. Alexander, 255 F.3d 128 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 1081 , 122 S.Ct. 812 , 151 L.Ed.2d 697 (2002), *105 reh’g denied, 585 U.S. 952 , 122 S.Ct. 1352 , 152 L.Ed.2d 254 (2002). 2005Although we did not grant certiorari on the res judicata issue, we held nevertheless that Lizzi’s FMLA claim was barred by the res judicata effect of the Fourth Circuit’s decision in Lizzi v. Alexander, 255 F.3d 128 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 1081 , 122 S.Ct. 812 , 151 L.Ed.2d 697 (2002), *105 reh’g denied, 585 U.S. 952 , 122 S.Ct. 1352 , 152 L.Ed.2d 254 (2002). | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Lizzi v. Alexander
red
1 sentence2005Although we did not grant certiorari on the res judicata issue, we held nevertheless that Lizzi’s FMLA claim was barred by the res judicata effect of the Fourth Circuit’s decision in Lizzi v. Alexander, 255 F.3d 128 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 1081 , 122 S.Ct. 812 , 151 L.Ed.2d 697 (2002), *105 reh’g denied, 585 U.S. 952 , 122 S.Ct. 1352 , 152 L.Ed.2d 254 (2002). | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Central Collection Unit v. Atlantic Container Line, Ltd.
green
2 sentences1976If an action is brought for a money judgment in contract or in tort against the State or an agency of the State without the State’s consent, actual or implied, it must be defended on the ground of sovereign immunity, which cannot be waived unless funds have been appropriated for the purpose or the agency can provide funds by taxation, Calvert Associates Limited Partnership v. Department of Employment & Social Services, 277 Md. 372 , 357 A. 2d 839 (1976); Charles Brohawm & Bros. v. Board of Trustees of Chesapeake College, 269 Md. 164 , 304 A. 2d 819 (1973); Jekofsky v. State Roads Comm’n, 264 M 1976If an action is brought for a money judgment in contract or in tort against the State or an agency of the State without the State’s consent, actual or implied, it must be defended on the ground of sovereign immunity, which cannot be waived unless funds have been appropriated for the purpose or the agency can provide funds by taxation, Calvert Associates Limited Partnership v. Department of Employment & Social Services, 277 Md. 372 , 357 A. 2d 839 (1976); Charles Brohawm & Bros. v. Board of Trustees of Chesapeake College, 269 Md. 164 , 304 A. 2d 819 (1973); Jekofsky v. State Roads Comm’n, 264 M | 1 | 1976–1976 |
Dunne v. State
green
2 sentences1976If an action is brought for a money judgment in contract or in tort against the State or an agency of the State without the State’s consent, actual or implied, it must be defended on the ground of sovereign immunity, which cannot be waived unless funds have been appropriated for the purpose or the agency can provide funds by taxation, Calvert Associates Limited Partnership v. Department of Employment & Social Services, 277 Md. 372 , 357 A. 2d 839 (1976); Charles Brohawm & Bros. v. Board of Trustees of Chesapeake College, 269 Md. 164 , 304 A. 2d 819 (1973); Jekofsky v. State Roads Comm’n, 264 M 1976If an action is brought for a money judgment in contract or in tort against the State or an agency of the State without the State’s consent, actual or implied, it must be defended on the ground of sovereign immunity, which cannot be waived unless funds have been appropriated for the purpose or the agency can provide funds by taxation, Calvert Associates Limited Partnership v. Department of Employment & Social Services, 277 Md. 372 , 357 A. 2d 839 (1976); Charles Brohawm & Bros. v. Board of Trustees of Chesapeake College, 269 Md. 164 , 304 A. 2d 819 (1973); Jekofsky v. State Roads Comm’n, 264 M | 1 | 1976–1976 |
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.