Case law

Abrazinski v. DuBois

940 F. Supp. 361 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Aug 16, 1996

In considering whether the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity, the question is whether the rights that underlie his claim were so “clearly established” that the defendants must have known their actions would violate … To overcome the defendants’ objection that they are protected by qualified immunity for their conduct of the disciplinary proceedings, then, the plaintiff must show that it was “clearly established” (i) that it was a violation

Lewis v. City of Boston

829 F. Supp. 471 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Aug 3, 1993

not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known. … In analyzing the defense of qualified immunity in this case, the court’s first task is to ascertain whether plaintiff has alleged, with sufficient particularity, that Officers Butler and Holland violated his clearly established

MacFarlane v. Town of East Bridgewater

110 F. Supp. 3d 310 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jun 23, 2015

Qualified Immunity — In General “Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, police officers are protected ‘from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … to qualified immunity.

Navedo v. Maloney

172 F. Supp. 2d 276 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Sep 28, 2001

With regard to certain of the A.D.A. claims, Maloney et al. take the position that (1) they are protected by qualified immunity, (2) Navedo does not qualify for protection under the A.D.A. because his physical impairments … based on clearly established law and in light of the information the officials possessed at the time of his conduct, for him to conclude that the violation was in fact lawful.

Williams v. City of Boston

771 F. Supp. 2d 190 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Mar 24, 2011

“The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials ‘from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … the right at issue was clearly established at the time of defendant’s alleged misconduct.”

Quiles v. Kilson

337 F. Supp. 2d 224 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Feb 23, 2004

He also found a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the police were protected by qualified immunity, except with respect to Officer Kilson, who was found not to have qualified immunity. … The court must determine: 1) whether the plaintiffs’ allegations, if true, establish a constitutional violation, 2) whether the right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation and 3) “whether a reasonable

Hootstein v. Collins

928 F. Supp. 2d 326 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Mar 8, 2013

was clearly established at the time of defendants’ actions. … to qualified immunity. .

Ward v. Hickey

781 F. Supp. 63 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Aug 31, 1990

Fitzgerald, supra, defines the contours of the qualified immunity defense. … An official’s success in claiming a qualified immunity for his actions is dependent upon the “objective reasonableness of (his) conduct, as measured by reference to clearly established law.” Harlow v.

Coscia v. Town of Pembroke, Mass.

715 F. Supp. 2d 212 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jun 4, 2010

Thus, at this very preliminary stage, the allegations are clearly actionable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and do not entitle the officers to a finding of qualified immunity. … Qualified Immunity The individual defendants in this case argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity.

Meaney v. Dever

170 F. Supp. 2d 46 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Sep 25, 2001

“Government officials performing discretionary functions, generally are shielded [by qualified immunity] from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … The granting of qualified immunity again turns on the third prong of the test: whether an objectively reasonable official would have believed that the action taken violated the clearly established constitutional right.

Lloyd v. Burt

997 F. Supp. 2d 71 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Feb 7, 2014

Qualified Immunity Finally, Defendants contend that Count I must be dismissed because Burt is immune from the claim under the doctrine of qualified immunity. … “The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials ‘from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person

Landry v. Mier

921 F. Supp. 880 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Apr 11, 1996

Qualified Immunity 1. … Moreover, because qualified immunity affords “an immunity from suit rather than a mere defense to liability,” see Mitchell v.

Titus v. Town of Nantucket

840 F. Supp. 2d 404 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Nov 10, 2011

Qualiñed Immunity The next inquiry is whether the police officers are entitled to qualified immunity. … “Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, police officers are protected from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable

Swain v. Spinney

932 F. Supp. 25 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jul 5, 1996

In any event, the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity from Swain’s lawsuit. … A police officer has the benefit of qualified immunity unless the plaintiff can establish that the right she asserts was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation. St. Hilaire v.

McGrath v. Town of Sandwich

22 F. Supp. 3d 58 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · May 16, 2014

Qualified immunity protects government officials who perform discretionary functions from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which … ) if so, whether the right was “clearly established” at the time of the defendant’s alleged violation.

Suboh v. Borgioli

298 F. Supp. 2d 192 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jan 7, 2004

clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … The Court further rules that Suboh has established that her procedural due process rights were violated by Borgioli, and that Borgioli is not entitled to qualified immunity.

HOOTSTEIN v. Collins

679 F. Supp. 2d 169 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jan 14, 2010

clearly established at the time of defendants’ actions. … to qualified immunity. 5 .

Hernandez v. Montanez

36 F. Supp. 3d 202 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · May 2, 2014

The doctrine of qualified immunity protects public. employees “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … qualified immunity.”

Williams v. City of Brockton

59 F. Supp. 3d 228 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Nov 13, 2014

“The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials ‘from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … Therefore, the *244 individual Police Defendants have not established that they are immune from liability on Williams’ surviving claims against them under the doctrine of qualified immunity. D.

Damon v. Hukowicz

964 F. Supp. 2d 120 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Aug 9, 2013

Qualified immunity shields government officials performing discretionary functions from liability for civil damages when “their *147 conduct does not violate ‘clearly established’ statutory or constitutional rights of which … immunity because it was not clearly established that such conduct violated Plaintiffs Fourth Amendment rights.