Legal Opinion

Tinsley v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority

Court of Appeals of Maryland

Decided October 26, 2012No. Nos. 1, 25PublishedCited by 9 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtBattaglia, J.

This consolidated opinion resolves two cases heard by this Court concerning the appropriate scope of the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority’s (WMATA) immunity from suit. In both cases, Veronica Tinsley and Kim Hodge, Petitioners herein, slipped, fell, and were injured at WMATA *221operated metrorail stations. They present a common question of whether their claims are barred by Section 80 of the WMATA Compact, Section 10-204(80) of the Transportation Article, Md.Code (1977, 2008 RepLVol.).1 Ms. Hodge also presents an additional question of whether Section 75 of the Compact limits the…

2Cases cited14 opinions

  1. United States v. GaubertSupreme Court of the United States · 1991
  2. Berkovitz v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1988
  3. Cuyler v. AdamsSupreme Court of the United States · 1981
  4. Eduardo Burkhart v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit AuthorityCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1997
  5. Alfred Morris v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit AuthorityCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1986

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

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. Whiteru v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit AuthorityDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 2017
  2. Ellis v. Housing AuthorityCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2013
  3. Abiola v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit AuthorityDistrict Court, D. Maryland · 2023
  4. Feakes v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit AuthorityDistrict Court, D. Maryland · 2025
  5. Lampkin v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit AuthorityDistrict Court, D. Maryland · 2022

4 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