to the University in the dispute over a tuition increase on the theory of a breach of contract, stating: There is no doubt ... that the Board is considered to be an arm of the State Government for the purposes of asserting the defense of sovereign immunity. See Md.Code (1978, 2001 Repl.Vol.), § 12-102 of the Education Article; see also Frankel v. Board of Regents of University of Maryland System, 361 Md. 298, 301, 761 A.2d 324, 325 (2000) (recognizing that the University of Maryland, which is a part of the University System of Maryland, is an independent unit of the Maryland State government); Maas, 173 Md. at 557, 197 A. at 124 (recognizing that the University of Maryland was a State actor for the purposes of sovereign immunity); Pearson v. Murray, 169 Md. 478, 482, 182 A. 590 (1936) (<HOLDING>). [T]he Board is clearly considered a State
holding that the state police is a state agency holding that the university of maryland law school was a state agency holding state university is not a person under  1983 holding that a state agency created under state law was a state actor holding that the words school property do not include a college or university