Barbre v. Pope

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that unarmed plaintiff had \presented sufficient facts to demonstrate gross negligence on the part of\ deputy sheriff who ordered him to raise his hands, saw him comply, approached with gun drawn, and shot him in the neck
• holding that officer was not entitled to immunity under the Maryland Tort Claims Act for shooting an individual who was not intoxicated, incapacitated, or threatening the safety of the officer or others, and whose hands were raised in surrender
• holding that plaintiff presented sufficient evidence of gross negligence where defendant, a deputy sheriff, ordered the unarmed plaintiff to raise his hands and, after plaintiff complied, approached the plaintiff with his gun drawn and shot him in the neck
• noting that the Court’s primary goal in statutory construction is to “discern the legislative purpose, the ends to be accomplished, or the evils to be remedied by a particular provision”
• applying the MTCA and commenting that “[i]ssues involving gross negligence are often more troublesome than those involving malice because a fine line exists between allegations of negligence and gross negligence”
• rejecting plaintiff’s contention that substantial compliance was satisfied where the State was not prejudiced by the failure to notify

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).