v. Stein, 328 Md. 1, 612 A.2d 880 (1992). Stein held that a government agency, which was not a party to the case, could take an immediate appeal of an order compelling it to produce confidential information without first disobeying the order and being held in contempt. Id. at 20-21, 612 A.2d 880. In reaching its decision, the Stein Court likened the non-party agency to a government official claiming immunity, who, the Court suggested, could take an immediate appeal of an order rejecting a claim of immunity. See id. at 18-20, 612 A.2d 880. In subsequent decisions, however, the Court of Appeals has dramatically curtailed the ability of government officials to take immediate appeals of interlocutory orders that reject immunity defenses. See, e.g., Daw-kins, 376 Md. at 65, 827 A.2d 115 (<HOLDING>). In the aftermath of Dawkins, Stein is best
holding that the doctrine of sovereign immunity barred a claim for money damages against the librarian of congress in his official capacity because immunity had not been waived and the exceptions to immunity did not apply holding trial court improperly granted dismissal on ground of immunity because the defendant had qualified statutory immunity rather than absolute immunity holding that qualified immunity is not merely immunity from damages but also immunity from suit recognizing that under texas law governmental immunity embraces two principles immunity from liability and immunity from suit holding that as a general rule interlocutory trial court orders rejecting defenses of common law sovereign immunity governmental immunity public official immunity statutory immunity or any other type of immunity are not appealable under the maryland collateral order doctrine