Maryland Section 1983 Cases

3 cases in the library

These are the cases in the library that arose in Maryland or bind courts there. Federal district courts in Maryland sit in the Fourth Circuit, so published Fourth Circuit decisions and Supreme Court decisions control. State-court decisions are included where they decide a probable-cause or offense-element question that a Section 1983 court will look to.

A case is tagged to a state when it arose there or when it is binding precedent for federal courts there. Circuit decisions are tagged to every state in the circuit. The Section 1983 limitations period in Maryland is 3 years; see the Maryland statute of limitations page.

Start with these guides

Maryland statute of limitations: 3 years The borrowed personal-injury period under Md. Code, Cts. & Jud. Proc. § 5-101, when the clock starts, and what to verify.
Statute of Limitations and Tolling in a § 1983 Case Learn when the filing clock starts in a Section 1983 case, how tolling can pause it, and how to avoid losing a viable claim by waiting too long.
How to Research Clearly Established Law in a § 1983 Case Learn how to research clearly established law for qualified immunity, find circuit-specific precedent, and build stronger Section 1983 arguments.
Before You File Anything: Local Rules and Your Judge's Standing Orders The seven questions to answer about your district and your judges before filing a single document in a Section 1983 case, where to find the answers, and a worksheet to keep them.

Cases, newest first

Walters v. McMahen

795 F. Supp. 2d 350 (D. Md. 2011) · Jul 14, 2011

Dismissed civil RICO class action alleging that corporate employees conspired to hire illegal immigrants to depress wages, holding that the intracorporate conspiracy doctrine bars conspiracy claims among employees of the same corporation acting within the scope of their employment.

Carter v. Morris

164 F.3d 215 (4th Cir. 1999) · Jan 14, 1999

Officers who burst into a home without warning, pointed guns at occupants' heads, and used excessive physical force during the execution of a search warrant violated the Fourth Amendment, and were not entitled to qualified immunity because the right to be free from excessive force during the execution of a warrant was clearly established.

Shaw v. Stroud

13 F.3d 791 (4th Cir. 1994) · Jan 6, 1994

A police supervisor can be held liable under § 1983 for a subordinate's use of excessive force where the supervisor had actual or constructive knowledge of a pervasive pattern of misconduct, was deliberately indifferent to the risk, and there was an affirmative causal link between the supervisor's inaction and the constitutional injury.

Looking for something else? Use the filters on the full case library.

Have corrections or want to suggest a change?