Legal Opinion

Shoemaker v. Smith

Court of Appeals of Maryland

Decided March 10, 1999No. 44, September Term, 1998PublishedCited by 106 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

WILNER, Judge.

The immediate issue before us is a procedural one—whether the Court of Special Appeals erred in dismissing petitioners’ appeal from an interlocutory order denying their motion for summary judgment, upon a finding that the appeal did not fall within the collateral order doctrine. The motion for summary judgment was based on a claim of immunity under the Maryland Tort Claims Act (Maryland Code, § 12-105 of the State Government Article and § 5-522 of the Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article), and, to resolve the procedural issue, we need to determine the standard of “malice” for…

2Cases cited23 opinions

  1. Harlow v. FitzgeraldSupreme Court of the United States · 1982
  2. Graham v. ConnorSupreme Court of the United States · 1989
  3. Pierson v. RaySupreme Court of the United States · 1967
  4. Johnson v. JonesSupreme Court of the United States · 1995
  5. Wood v. StricklandSupreme Court of the United States · 1975

18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by106 opinions

  1. Young v. City of Mount RanierCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 2001
  2. E.W. v. Rosemary DolgosCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 2018
  3. Barbre v. PopeCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2007
  4. DiPino v. DavisCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1999
  5. Okwa v. HarperCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2000

101 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API