Ford v. Baltimore City Sheriff's Office

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that the trespass claim fails because “[i]t is clear that the deputies were justified in relying on a facially valid warrant to enter the appellant’s property”
• “[T]he MTCA permits suit against the State for a negligent violation of the State Constitution by State personnel, but State personnel shall be immune from such suits.”
• if “the State employee has acted with malice or gross negligence, . . . the State is immune from suit and the injured party may only bring a viable tort claim against (continued . . .
• “Indeed, several other Maryland cases have presented scenarios in which questions of malice, disposed of in summary judgment or by a motion to dismiss, were remanded so that they could be decided by a fact finder.”
• “in Maryland, the State is subject to suits sounding in tort”
• same for an excessive force claim under Article 26

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).