Case law

Santiago v. Feeney

379 F. Supp. 2d 150 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jul 26, 2005

immunity because “their conduct was objectively reasonable in light of clearly established law.” 40 For the relevant aspects of this case, Massachusetts law is more clearly established than its federal counterpart. … In addition, § 1983 and the MCRA employ the same qualified immunity standard. 41 This court, therefore, will begin its analysis by determining whether Eddings and Feeney are entitled to qualified immunity with respect to

Heinrich Ex Rel. Heinrich v. Sweet

62 F. Supp. 2d 282 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Aug 16, 1999

Whether the Private Defendants are Entitled to Qualified Immunity. 1. Whether Any Private Defendants May Claim Qualified Immunity. … The private defendants argue that they are entitled to summary judgment based on qualified, immunity because the constitutional rights alleged to have been violated were not clearly established at the time of the relevant

Donald M v. Matava

668 F. Supp. 714 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jul 13, 1987

Massachusetts General Hospital’s motion to dismiss based on qualified immunity arising out of the qualified immunity of its employees is DENIED. See generally Owen v. … City of Independence, 445 U.S. 622 , 100 S.Ct. 1398 , 63 L.Ed.2d 673 (1980) (Court rejected idea of extending “to municipalities a qualified immunity based on the good faith of their officers.”).

Doe Ex Rel. Doe v. Massachusetts Department for Social Services

948 F. Supp. 103 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Nov 8, 1996

Since qualified immunity applies whenever the asserted right was not “clearly established,” a threshold inquiry in any case in which the defense is raised is whether the asserted constitutional right exists at all. … Tetreault is therefore eligible for qualified immunity unless a reasonable social worker would have known that John had a clearly established right on May 3, 1995, to meet in private with his attorney.

McGrath v. Town of Sandwich

169 F. Supp. 3d 251 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Sep 29, 2015

Qualified immunity protects a state official against § 1983 suits unless 1) the official violated the plaintiffs constitutional right and 2) that right was clearly established at the time of the violation. Pearson v. … The Court declines to conclude, as a matter of law, that Officer Bondarek had qualified immunity or that Ty’s claim is without substance.

Parker v. Town of Swansea

270 F. Supp. 2d 92 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · May 27, 2003

The officers, however, contend that they are protected by the doctrine of qualified immunity. … Town of Plymouth, 191 F.3d at 23 (disputed facts precluded summary judgment on issue of qualified immunity); Swain v.

Medeiros v. Town of Dracut

21 F. Supp. 2d 82 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Sep 18, 1998

There are, of course, two questions to be addressed in any qualified immunity analysis. … The first question, whether the right the plaintiff claims the defendant infringed was "clearly established” at the time of the alleged violation, is not at issue in this case.

Stratton v. City of Boston

731 F. Supp. 42 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Dec 28, 1989

Although, as discussed in Part V, infra, the claims against Commissioner Roache individually may be barred by qualified immunity, such immunity does not bar those claims made against Commissioner Roache in his official capacity … This “good faith” standard shields the officials “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known

Seaver v. Manduco

178 F. Supp. 2d 30 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jan 4, 2002

Qualified Immunity Are defendants sued in their individual capacities in this case protected from suit for money damages by the doctrine of qualified immunity? … Qualified immunity applies when a government official’s “conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have knowledge.” Harlow v.

South Middlesex Opportunity Council, Inc. v. Town of Framingham

752 F. Supp. 2d 85 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Sep 9, 2010

The Defendants have not established that qualified immunity applies to the alleged conduct here. … Similarly, a qualified immunity defense would have to establish that SMOC’s rights under the FHA were not clearly established at the time of the alleged violations, and consequently that a reasonable person in the Defendants

Rogan v. Menino

973 F. Supp. 72 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Aug 19, 1997

Acts ch. 664, they should be shielded by qualified immunity for their conduct in doing so. … Contrary to the MBTA Defendant’s assertions, this right was clearly established at the time of Rogan’s accident. See Germany v.

Melville v. Town of Adams

9 F. Supp. 3d 77 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Mar 27, 2014

The Magistrate Judge also decided that Plaintiff had a clearly established right to be heard at a meaningful time and in a meaningful way, and therefore qualified immunity did not protect Defendants. … Qualified Immunity As to the Board members’ individual-capacity liability, the court concludes that qualified immunity is not available on these facts at this time. “[T]he qualified immunity inquiry is a two-part test.

Gavrilles v. O'Connor

599 F. Supp. 357 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Dec 28, 1984

The individual defendants base their motion on a claim that, as government officials performing discretionary functions, they have a qualified immunity which shields them from liability for civil damages because their conduct … did not clearly violate established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.

Bannister v. Ponte

609 F. Supp. 920 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · May 30, 1985

The defendants also argue that they are entitled to qualified good faith immunity. See Procunier v. Navarette, 434 U.S. 555, 561 , 98 S.Ct. 855, 859 , 55 L.Ed.2d 24 (1978); Harlow v. … Johnson, 690 F.2d 1098, 1109 (4th Cir.1982) (a prison disciplinary board qualifies for absolute immunity only where the action complained of is of a judicial character).

Rectrix Aerodome Centers, Inc. v. Barnstable Municipal Airport Commission

534 F. Supp. 2d 201 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Feb 15, 2008

Clearly Articulated Policy To determine whether state action immunity applies, the court must first consider whether the Airport’s enabling legislation sets forth a clearly articulated policy of displacing competition. … established and enforced by the FAA.

Lockhart-Bembery v. Town of Wayland Police Department

447 F. Supp. 2d 11 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jul 11, 2006

Under the doctrine of qualified immunity: government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … A defendant is entitled to qualified immunity unless: 1) the plaintiffs allegations, if true, establish a constitutional violation, 2) the right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation and 3) a similarly

STEFANIK v. Town of Huntington

536 F. Supp. 2d 106 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Mar 13, 2008

Qualified Immunity As this court recently informed Plaintiff in another case, Stefanik v. … Reno (see n. 1), “[g]overnment officials performing discretionary functions generally are granted a qualified immunity and are ‘shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established

Maraj v. Massachusetts

836 F. Supp. 2d 17 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Dec 13, 2011

immunity, which “protects government officials from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights....” 61 The relevant inquiry here, then, is … In Pearson , the Supreme Court grappled with a previously established two-step approach to determine whether qualified immunity bars suit.

Bowler v. Town of Hudson

514 F. Supp. 2d 168 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Oct 4, 2007

Qualified Immunity Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, public officials “performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established … An official is entitled to qualified immunity unless (1) “the plaintiffs’ allegations, if true, establish a constitutional violation,” (2) “the right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation,” and (3)

Chao v. Ballista

806 F. Supp. 2d 358 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jul 28, 2011

Ryan, however, claims that she is entitled to qualified immunity because, at the time of the events in question, it was not “clearly established” that her conduct was unlawful. … Because the constitutional right to protection was clearly established both generally and as applied to these facts, Ryan is not entitled to qualified immunity. IY.