Cox v. Prince George's County

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that “the burden is on the plaintiff to show that a master-servant relationship exists,” but “[f]or the purposes of a demurrer . . . the allegations in the declaration must be taken as true.”
• explaining that “a police officer would not be personally liable for negligent conduct committed within the scope of employment due to his public-official immunity” and adding that “a police officer does not enjoy this immunity if he commits an intentional tort”
• “[A] police officer would not be personally liable for negligent conduct committed within the scope of employment due to his public-official immunity.”
• “[A] police officer does not enjoy [public official] immunity if he commits an intentional tort or acts with malice”
• “a police officer does not enjoy this [public official] immunity if he commits an intentional tort”
• scope of employment issue was for the jury and should not have been resolved by sustaining a demurrer

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).