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.
11 Maryland opinions name it 3 courts 1996–2025 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 |
|---|---|---|
ARA Health Services, Inc. v. Department of Public Safety & Correctional Servicesgreen2 sentences2025In assessing whether sovereign immunity applies, the Court looks at: “(1) whether the entity asserting immunity qualifies for the protection; and, if so, (2) whether the legislature has waived immunity either directly or by necessary implication, in a manner that would render the defense of immunity unavailable.” Id. (quoting ARA Health Servs., Inc., 344 Md. at 92 ). 2011In order to determine if the doctrine of sovereign immunity applies to the County Board in the underlying contract suit, we ask: “(1) whether the entity asserting immunity qualifies for the protection; and if so, (2) whether the legislature has waived immunity either directly or by necessary implication, in a manner that would render the defense of immunity unavailable.” Magnetti, 402 Md. at 557 , 937 A.2d at 224 (quoting ARA Health v. Dept. of Public Safety, 344 Md. 85, 92 , 685 A.2d 435, 438 (1996)); see also Austin v. City of Baltimore, 286 Md. 51, 69-71 , 405 A.2d 255, 264-66 (1979) (Eldri | 2 | 8 |
Board of Trustees v. John K. Ruff, Inc.green2 sentences1998As we held in ARA Health Services, Inc. v. Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services, “The applicability of sovereign immunity in a particular case, therefore, turns on: (1) whether the entity asserting immunity qualifies for its protection; and, if so, (2) whether the legislature has waived immunity, either directly or by necessary implication, in a manner that would render the defense of immunity unavailable.” 344 Md. 85, 92 , 685 A.2d 435, 438 (1996) citing Board v. John K Ruff, Inc., 278 Md. 580, 586 , 366 A.2d 360, 363 (1976). 1998As we held in ARA Health Services, Inc. v. Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services, “The applicability of sovereign immunity in a particular case, therefore, turns on: (1) whether the entity asserting immunity qualifies for its protection; and, if so, (2) whether the legislature has waived immunity, either directly or by necessary implication, in a manner that would render the defense of immunity unavailable.” 344 Md. 85, 92 , 685 A.2d 435, 438 (1996) citing Board v. John K Ruff, Inc., 278 Md. 580, 586 , 366 A.2d 360, 363 (1976). | 2 | 3 |
Stern v. Board of Regentsgreen2 sentences2011First, we must determine “whether the entity asserting immunity qualifies for its protection.” Stern, 380 Md. at 700 , 846 A.2d at 1001-02 (citation omitted). 2011First, we must determine “whether the entity asserting immunity qualifies for its protection.” Stern, 380 Md. at 700 , 846 A.2d at 1001-02 (citation omitted). | 1 | 2 |
Proctor v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authoritygreen2 sentences2012WMATA enjoys sovereign immunity as a result of the Compact’s signatories “confer[ring] their respective sovereign immunities upon it.” Morris v. Washington Metropolitan Transit Authority, 781 F.2d 218, 219 (D.C.Cir.1986); see also Smith v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, 290 F.3d 201, 206 (4th Cir.2002); Proctor v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, 412 Md. 691, 708 , 990 A.2d 1048,1057-58 (2010). 2012WMATA enjoys sovereign immunity as a result of the Compact’s signatories “confer[ring] their respective sovereign immunities upon it.” Morris v. Washington Metropolitan Transit Authority, 781 F.2d 218, 219 (D.C.Cir.1986); see also Smith v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, 290 F.3d 201, 206 (4th Cir.2002); Proctor v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, 412 Md. 691, 708 , 990 A.2d 1048,1057-58 (2010). | 1 | 1 |
Alfred Morris v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authoritygreen1 sentence2012WMATA enjoys sovereign immunity as a result of the Compact’s signatories “confer[ring] their respective sovereign immunities upon it.” Morris v. Washington Metropolitan Transit Authority, 781 F.2d 218, 219 (D.C.Cir.1986); see also Smith v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, 290 F.3d 201, 206 (4th Cir.2002); Proctor v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, 412 Md. 691, 708 , 990 A.2d 1048,1057-58 (2010). | 1 | 1 |
Smith v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authoritygreen1 sentence2012WMATA enjoys sovereign immunity as a result of the Compact’s signatories “confer[ring] their respective sovereign immunities upon it.” Morris v. Washington Metropolitan Transit Authority, 781 F.2d 218, 219 (D.C.Cir.1986); see also Smith v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, 290 F.3d 201, 206 (4th Cir.2002); Proctor v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, 412 Md. 691, 708 , 990 A.2d 1048,1057-58 (2010). | 1 | 1 |
BOARD OF ED. OF BALTIMORE CTY. v. Zimmer-Rubertgreen2 sentences2011We affirm that a county board of education, is “a State agency entitled to governmental immunity.” BEKA, 190 Md.App. at 694 , 989 A.2d at 1196 (citing Board of Ed. v. Zimmer-Rubert, 409 Md. 200, 205-06 , 973 A.2d 233, 236-37 (2009)) (noting numerous cases in support of the proposition that the Court of Appeals has “long considered” county school boards to be State agencies); see also Chesapeake Charter v. Board of Ed., 358 Md. 129, 135-36 , 747 A.2d 625, 628-29 (2000) (holding that county school boards are ‘creatures’ of the General Assembly and principally governed by state policies, although 2011We affirm that a county board of education, is “a State agency entitled to governmental immunity.” BEKA, 190 Md.App. at 694 , 989 A.2d at 1196 (citing Board of Ed. v. Zimmer-Rubert, 409 Md. 200, 205-06 , 973 A.2d 233, 236-37 (2009)) (noting numerous cases in support of the proposition that the Court of Appeals has “long considered” county school boards to be State agencies); see also Chesapeake Charter v. Board of Ed., 358 Md. 129, 135-36 , 747 A.2d 625, 628-29 (2000) (holding that county school boards are ‘creatures’ of the General Assembly and principally governed by state policies, although | 1 | 1 |
University of Maryland v. Maasgreen2 sentences2011A legislative waiver of sovereign immunity, notably, is ineffective unless “there are ‘funds available for the satisfaction of the judgment’ or the agency has been given the power ‘for the raising of funds necessary to satisfy recovery against it.’ ” Stern, 380 Md. at 701 , 846 A.2d at 1001 -02 *207 (quoting University of Maryland v. Maas, 173 Md. 554, 559 , 197 A. 123, 126 (1938)). 5 BEKA asserts that even if the County Board is entitled to sovereign immunity, that doctrine has been legislatively waived for its contract claim pursuant to Md.Code (2009 RepLVol.), §§ 12-201 et seq. of the State 2011A legislative waiver of sovereign immunity, notably, is ineffective unless “there are ‘funds available for the satisfaction of the judgment’ or the agency has been given the power ‘for the raising of funds necessary to satisfy recovery against it.’ ” Stern, 380 Md. at 701 , 846 A.2d at 1001 -02 *207 (quoting University of Maryland v. Maas, 173 Md. 554, 559 , 197 A. 123, 126 (1938)). 5 BEKA asserts that even if the County Board is entitled to sovereign immunity, that doctrine has been legislatively waived for its contract claim pursuant to Md.Code (2009 RepLVol.), §§ 12-201 et seq. of the State | 1 | 1 |
Austin v. Mayor of Baltimoregreen2 sentences2011In order to determine if the doctrine of sovereign immunity applies to the County Board in the underlying contract suit, we ask: “(1) whether the entity asserting immunity qualifies for the protection; and if so, (2) whether the legislature has waived immunity either directly or by necessary implication, in a manner that would render the defense of immunity unavailable.” Magnetti, 402 Md. at 557 , 937 A.2d at 224 (quoting ARA Health v. Dept. of Public Safety, 344 Md. 85, 92 , 685 A.2d 435, 438 (1996)); see also Austin v. City of Baltimore, 286 Md. 51, 69-71 , 405 A.2d 255, 264-66 (1979) (Eldri 2011In order to determine if the doctrine of sovereign immunity applies to the County Board in the underlying contract suit, we ask: “(1) whether the entity asserting immunity qualifies for the protection; and if so, (2) whether the legislature has waived immunity either directly or by necessary implication, in a manner that would render the defense of immunity unavailable.” Magnetti, 402 Md. at 557 , 937 A.2d at 224 (quoting ARA Health v. Dept. of Public Safety, 344 Md. 85, 92 , 685 A.2d 435, 438 (1996)); see also Austin v. City of Baltimore, 286 Md. 51, 69-71 , 405 A.2d 255, 264-66 (1979) (Eldri | 1 | 1 |
Chesapeake Charter, Inc. v. Anne Arundel County Board of Educationgreen2 sentences2011We affirm that a county board of education, is “a State agency entitled to governmental immunity.” BEKA, 190 Md.App. at 694 , 989 A.2d at 1196 (citing Board of Ed. v. Zimmer-Rubert, 409 Md. 200, 205-06 , 973 A.2d 233, 236-37 (2009)) (noting numerous cases in support of the proposition that the Court of Appeals has “long considered” county school boards to be State agencies); see also Chesapeake Charter v. Board of Ed., 358 Md. 129, 135-36 , 747 A.2d 625, 628-29 (2000) (holding that county school boards are ‘creatures’ of the General Assembly and principally governed by state policies, although 2011We affirm that a county board of education, is “a State agency entitled to governmental immunity.” BEKA, 190 Md.App. at 694 , 989 A.2d at 1196 (citing Board of Ed. v. Zimmer-Rubert, 409 Md. 200, 205-06 , 973 A.2d 233, 236-37 (2009)) (noting numerous cases in support of the proposition that the Court of Appeals has “long considered” county school boards to be State agencies); see also Chesapeake Charter v. Board of Ed., 358 Md. 129, 135-36 , 747 A.2d 625, 628-29 (2000) (holding that county school boards are ‘creatures’ of the General Assembly and principally governed by state policies, although | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Maryland. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Magnetti v. University of Maryland
green
2 sentences2025In assessing whether sovereign immunity applies, the Court looks at: “(1) whether the entity asserting immunity qualifies for the protection; and, if so, (2) whether the legislature has waived immunity either directly or by necessary implication, in a manner that would render the defense of immunity unavailable.” Id. (quoting ARA Health Servs., Inc., 344 Md. at 92 ). 2012In considering whether the doctrine of sovereign immunity prevents a court from exercising jurisdiction in a given suit, we ask “ ‘(1) whether the entity asserting immunity qualifies for the protection; and, if so, (2) whether the legislature has waived immunity either directly or by necessary implication, in a manner that would render the defense of immunity unavailable.’ ” Beka Indus., 419 Md. at 206 , 18 A.3d at 900 , quoting Magnetti, 402 Md. at 557 , 937 A.2d at 224 . | 3 | 2011–2025 |
Beka Industries, Inc. v. Worcester County Board of Education
green
2 sentences2012In considering whether the doctrine of sovereign immunity prevents a court from exercising jurisdiction in a given suit, we ask “ ‘(1) whether the entity asserting immunity qualifies for the protection; and, if so, (2) whether the legislature has waived immunity either directly or by necessary implication, in a manner that would render the defense of immunity unavailable.’ ” Beka Indus., 419 Md. at 206 , 18 A.3d at 900 , quoting Magnetti, 402 Md. at 557 , 937 A.2d at 224 . 2012In considering whether the doctrine of sovereign immunity prevents a court from exercising jurisdiction in a given suit, we ask “ ‘(1) whether the entity asserting immunity qualifies for the protection; and, if so, (2) whether the legislature has waived immunity either directly or by necessary implication, in a manner that would render the defense of immunity unavailable.’ ” Beka Indus., 419 Md. at 206 , 18 A.3d at 900 , quoting Magnetti, 402 Md. at 557 , 937 A.2d at 224 . | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Board of Education v. Beka Industries, Inc.
green
2 sentences2011A legislative waiver of sovereign immunity, notably, is ineffective unless “there are ‘funds available for the satisfaction of the judgment’ or the agency has been given the power ‘for the raising of funds necessary to satisfy recovery against it.’ ” Stern, 380 Md. at 701 , 846 A.2d at 1001 -02 *207 (quoting University of Maryland v. Maas, 173 Md. 554, 559 , 197 A. 123, 126 (1938)). 5 BEKA asserts that even if the County Board is entitled to sovereign immunity, that doctrine has been legislatively waived for its contract claim pursuant to Md.Code (2009 RepLVol.), §§ 12-201 et seq. of the State 2011A legislative waiver of sovereign immunity, notably, is ineffective unless “there are ‘funds available for the satisfaction of the judgment’ or the agency has been given the power ‘for the raising of funds necessary to satisfy recovery against it.’ ” Stern, 380 Md. at 701 , 846 A.2d at 1001 -02 *207 (quoting University of Maryland v. Maas, 173 Md. 554, 559 , 197 A. 123, 126 (1938)). 5 BEKA asserts that even if the County Board is entitled to sovereign immunity, that doctrine has been legislatively waived for its contract claim pursuant to Md.Code (2009 RepLVol.), §§ 12-201 et seq. of the State | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Condon v. State
green
2 sentences1999Condon v. State of Marylandr-University of Maryland, 332 Md. 481, 492 , 632 A.2d 753 (1993); Welsh, 308 Md. at 58-59 , 521 A.2d 313 . *398 The Court of Appeals has set out the preliminary questions when the defense of sovereign immunity has been raised: (1) whether the entity asserting immunity qualifies for its protection; and, if so, (2) whether the legislature has waived immunity, either directly or by necessary implication, in a manner that would render the defense of immunity unavailable. 1999Condon v. State of Marylandr-University of Maryland, 332 Md. 481, 492 , 632 A.2d 753 (1993); Welsh, 308 Md. at 58-59 , 521 A.2d 313 . *398 The Court of Appeals has set out the preliminary questions when the defense of sovereign immunity has been raised: (1) whether the entity asserting immunity qualifies for its protection; and, if so, (2) whether the legislature has waived immunity, either directly or by necessary implication, in a manner that would render the defense of immunity unavailable. | 1 | 1999–1999 |
Department of Natural Resources v. Welsh
green
2 sentences1999Condon v. State of Marylandr-University of Maryland, 332 Md. 481, 492 , 632 A.2d 753 (1993); Welsh, 308 Md. at 58-59 , 521 A.2d 313 . *398 The Court of Appeals has set out the preliminary questions when the defense of sovereign immunity has been raised: (1) whether the entity asserting immunity qualifies for its protection; and, if so, (2) whether the legislature has waived immunity, either directly or by necessary implication, in a manner that would render the defense of immunity unavailable. 1999Condon v. State of Marylandr-University of Maryland, 332 Md. 481, 492 , 632 A.2d 753 (1993); Welsh, 308 Md. at 58-59 , 521 A.2d 313 . *398 The Court of Appeals has set out the preliminary questions when the defense of sovereign immunity has been raised: (1) whether the entity asserting immunity qualifies for its protection; and, if so, (2) whether the legislature has waived immunity, either directly or by necessary implication, in a manner that would render the defense of immunity unavailable. | 1 | 1999–1999 |
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.