Thomas v. City of Annapolis

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that the Court of Appeals has not decided whether § 5-507(b)(1) \codifies common law immunity or whether it applies to intentional and constitutional torts\
• observing that “it is clear that judicial immunity operates to bar civil suits regardless of the nature of the tort alleged to have been committed.”
• noting that the Court of Appeals has not decided whether § 5-507(b)(1) \codifies common law immunity or whether it applies to intentional and constitutional torts\
• holding that actual malice is “an act without legal justification or excuse, but with an evil or rancorous motive influenced by hate, the purpose being to deliberately and wilfully injure the plaintiff.” (citing Leese v. Baltimore County, 64 Md.App. 442, 497 A.2d 159 (1985))
• affirming entry of summary judgment against plaintiff who failed to provide evidence legally sufficient to permit inference of malice on part of Mayor of Annapolis, among others
• “[M]alice for the purposes of this statute [i]s an intentional act done knowingly for an improper purpose without legal justification or excuse.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).