the intermediate appellate court as they relate to this issue. 21 . Here, we stress that our holding is limited to the narrow issue of whether Rosen Hoover, P.A. is entitled to receive the benefit of qualified public official immunity or absolute judicial immunity for the allegations presented in Petitioner's Complaint. On remand, the liability of Rosen Hoover, P.A. will be contingent upon whether Petitioner can establish primary liability of Diamond and Brown and vicarious liability of Rosen Hoover, P.A. An employer can be found liable for the tortious acts of its employees if the employees, at the time of the tortious conduct, were acting within the scope of their employment and in furtherance of the employer's business. See Oaks v. Connors, 339 Md. 24, 30, 660 A.2d 423, 426 (1995) (<HOLDING>); Gallagher’s Estate v. Battle, 209 Md. 592,
holding that the criminal acts committed by the defendants employees were outside of the scope of their employment and in no way advanced the interests of the defendant so that the defendant could not be held liable under a theory of respondeat superior citations omitted holding governmental entity liable for malicious harassment of its employee under doctrine of respondeat superior holding that the inquiry into whether an employee was acting within the scope of his employment depends on the respondeat superior law of the state in which the tort occurred holding that chesterman is the only test to determine whether an employer is liable under the doctrine of respondeat superior holding that the doctrine of respondeat superior in maryland allows an employer to be held vicariously liable for the tortious conduct of its employee when that employee was acting within the scope of the employment relationship citations omitted