Elliott v. Kupferman

How courts have described this case

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

• elaborating on the requirements to overcome immunity under the MTCA, stating that “the plaintiff must allege with some clarity and precision those facts which make the act malicious”
• stating that in order to have a property interest in a benefit such as state employment, the person must “have more than an abstract need or desire for it ... more than a unilateral expectation of it. He must, instead, have a legitimate claim of entitlement to it.”
• malice sufficient to defeat immunity under predecessor statute to C.J. § 5-321 must be an intentional act done knowingly for an improper purpose without legal justification or excuse
• “To overcome a motion raising governmental immunity, the plaintiff must allege with some clarity and precision those facts which make the act malicious.”
• “malice,” in the context of statute providing official immunity, “consists of the intentional doing of a wrongful act without legal justification or excuse. An act is malicious if it is done knowingly and deliberately, for an improper motive and without legal justification.”
• “[m]erely asserting that an act was done maliciously, or without just cause, or illegally, or for improper motive does not suffice. To overcome a motion raising governmental immunity, the plaintiff must allege with some clarity and precision those facts which make the act malicious”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).