Citing references
Opinions citing Williams v. Prince George's Cnty., 685 A.2d 884 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 1996)
99 citing cases
-
852 A.2d 1047 Court of Special Appeals of MarylandJuly 2, 2004
Williams v. Prince George’s County, 112 Md.App. 526, 554 , 685 A.2d 884 (1996); see also Ashton v. Brown, 339 Md. 70, 119-21 , 660 A.2d 447 (1995). 4 Legal justification was defined in Great Atl. & Pac. Tea Co. v.
-
762 A.2d 172 Court of Special Appeals of MarylandNovember 14, 2000
Williams, 112 Md.App. at 551 , 685 A.2d 884 . In Williams, the plaintiffs mother had previously reported her car stolen.
-
708 A.2d 357 Court of Special Appeals of MarylandApril 16, 1998
Constantine, 113 Md.App. 291 , 688 A.2d 1 (1997); Williams v. Prince George's County, 112 Md.App. 526 , 685 A.2d 884 (1996). Some immunities derive from common law and others are statutory.
-
736 A.2d 1084 Court of Special Appeals of MarylandSeptember 7, 1999
Annapolis, 113 Md.App. 440, 454-57 , 688 A.2d 448 (1997); Williams v. Prince George’s County, 112 Md.App. 526, 550-51 , 685 A.2d 884 (1996); Davis v.
-
780 A.2d 410 Court of Special Appeals of MarylandSeptember 6, 2001
Robinson, 262 Md. at 347 , 278 A.2d 71 ; Williams, 112 Md.App. at 550 , 685 A.2d 884 .
-
725 A.2d 596 Court of Special Appeals of MarylandMarch 2, 1999
Williams v. Prince George’s County, supra, 112 Md.App. 526 , 685 A.2d 884 , provides a useful comparison. In that case, Mary Williams’s car was stolen from a supermarket parking lot and later recovered by police in an alley near the store.
-
998 A.2d 369 Court of Special Appeals of MarylandJuly 7, 2010
McGeeney, 123 Md.App. 330, 338 , 718 A.2d 631 (1998); Williams v. Prince George’s County, 112 Md.App. 526, 547 , 685 A.2d 884 (1996). See also Richardson v.
-
111 F. Supp. 2d 704 D. MarylandAugust 11, 2000
Williams v. Prince George’s Co., 112 Md.App. 526, 548 , 685 A.2d 884 (1996). Contrary to Officer Ransom’s assertions, this is not necessarily a question for a jury. See id. at 548-49 , 685 A.2d 884 (granting summary judgment for defendants).
-
D. MarylandAugust 30, 2021
Defendants also argue that public official immunity protects the officers from liability for negligence unless they acted with malice, ECF No. 25-1 at 15 (citing Williams v. Prince George’s County, 112 Md.
-
153 F. Supp. 2d 793 D. MarylandJuly 13, 2001
Williams v. Prince George’s County, 112 Md.App. 526, 546 , 685 A.2d 884, 894 (1996). See Manikhi v. Mass Transit Admin., 360 Md. 333, 362 , 758 A.2d 95, 111 (2000); DiPino v. Davis, 354 Md. 18, 51 , 729 A.2d 354, 371 (1999).
-
927 A.2d 83 Court of Special Appeals of MarylandJuly 3, 2007
, 112 Md.App. at 549 , 685 A.2d 884 ).
-
103 A.3d 720 Court of Special Appeals of MarylandNovember 25, 2014
Montgomery County, 127 Md.App. 172, 183-85 , 732 A.2d 356 (1999); Williams v. Prince George’s County, 112 Md.App. 526, 552-53 , 685 A.2d 884 (1996); Khawaja v. City of Rockville, 89 Md.App. 314, 323-26 , 598 A.2d 489 (1991).
-
65 A.3d 785 Court of Special Appeals of MarylandMay 2, 2013
In Williams v. Prince George’s County, 112 Md.App. 526, 553 , 685 A.2d 884 (1996), a case arising out of the actions of police officers, common law tort claims were brought against Prince George’s County.
-
957 A.2d 1000 Court of Special Appeals of MarylandOctober 3, 2008
Hines I, 157 Md.App. at 551 , 852 A.2d 1047 (citing Williams v. Prince George’s County, 112 Md. App. 526, 554 , 685 A.2d 884 (1996)).
-
718 A.2d 631 Court of Special Appeals of MarylandOctober 2, 1998
Williams v. Prince George’s County, 112 Md.App. 526, 547 , 685 A.2d 884 (1996).
-
730 A.2d 774 Court of Special Appeals of MarylandJune 3, 1999
Williams v. Prince George’s County, 112 Md.App. 526, 543 , 685 A.2d 884 (1996).
-
933 A.2d 495 Court of Special Appeals of MarylandSeptember 28, 2007
Williams v. Prince George’s County, 112 Md.App. 526, 553 , 685 A.2d 884 (1996).
-
100 A.3d 499 Court of Special Appeals of MarylandAugust 29, 2014
Prince George’s County, 112 Md.App. 526, 547 , 685 A.2d 884 (1996) (in certain contexts, “the essential analysis ... is the same under Articles 24 and 26 of the Maryland Constitution as that under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution”).
-
3 F. Supp. 2d 648 D. MarylandApril 9, 1998
See Williams v. Prince George’s County, 112 Md.App. 526, 550 , 685 A.2d 884 (Md.App.1996); Manders, 101 Md.App. at 217 , 643 A.2d 931 .
-
D. MarylandNovember 22, 2022
Williams v. Prince George’s Cnty., 112 Md. App. 526, 554 (1996) (other citation omitted). 1.
-
D. MarylandMarch 20, 2023
See Williams v. Prince George’s County, 685 A.2d 884, 896-97 (Md. App. 1996) (“[W]e may look to the facts and circumstances set forth in the deposition testimony as well as other matters outside of the pleadings.”).
-
D. MarylandMarch 10, 2020
Id. at 319 (citing Williams v. Prince George’s Cty., 112 Md. App. 526, 552 , 685 A.2d 884 (1996)). Of import here, the BPD is included in the list of “local governments” covered by the LGTCA. C.J. § 301(d)(21).
-
279 F. App'x 209 Fourth CircuitMay 14, 2008 Unpublished
Williams v. Prince George's County, 112 Md. App. 526 , 685 A.2d 884, 896 (Md.Ct. Spec.App.1996).
-
232 A.3d 278 Court of Special Appeals of MarylandJuly 1, 2020
Williams v. Prince George’s County, 112 Md. App. 526, 553 , 685 A.2d 884 (1996).
-
D. MarylandAugust 2, 2019
Williams v. Prince George’s Cnty., 112 Md. App. 526, 554 (1996) (“when the force used is not excessive,” an officer can only be held accountable for a battery where “there is no legal authority or justification” for the conduct).