Case law

Walker v. Jackson

56 F. Supp. 3d 89 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Oct 31, 2014

Qualified immunity The genuine issue of material fact leads the Court to deny Officer Jackson’s contention that he is entitled to qualified immunity with respect to plaintiffs’ unreasonable search claim. … The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials performing discretionary functions from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional

Turkowitz v. Town of Provincetown

914 F. Supp. 2d 62 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Oct 26, 2012

The judicially engrafted doctrine of qualified immunity shields police officers from § 1983 liability if the constitutional right at issue was not “clearly established” at the time of the alleged violation. … Because this right has not been clearly established, defendants are entitled to qualified immunity on his claim. Plaintiff Richardson’s claim stands on different footing.

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.

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.

Goodhile v. Gribbons

186 F. Supp. 3d 4 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · May 16, 2016

Qualified immunity protects police officers “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. … Courts use a two-part test to determine whether qualified immunity applies: (1) whether the facts alleged by the plaintiff make out a violation of a constitutional right; and, if so (2) whether the right was clearly established

Martineau v. Kurland

36 F. Supp. 2d 39 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Feb 8, 1999

Immunity The Court of Appeals for the First Circuit has endorsed a two-prong test to evaluate a defense of qualified immunity. … established law.

Howe v. Bank for International Settlements

194 F. Supp. 2d 6 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Mar 26, 2002

This immunity shields “govern *22 ment officials performing discretionary-functions ... from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of … Moreover, even if the plaintiff could maintain an individual-capacity suit for damages, Greenspan and McDonough would be protected by their qualified immunity, “as their conduct [on the BIS board] d[id] not violate any clearly

Cryer v. Massachusetts Department of Correction

763 F. Supp. 2d 237 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jan 7, 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 qualified immunity analysis has two parts.

Lemieux v. City of Holyoke

740 F. Supp. 2d 246 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Sep 28, 2010

Here, the uncontested record clearly supports Defendants’ assertion that Plaintiffs were subject to a qualifying eight-day work period at all relevant times. … The decision contained no discussion of the broader doctrine of municipal immunity well established in Massachusetts law.

Salcedo v. Town of Dudley

629 F. Supp. 2d 86 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Mar 20, 2009

The qualified-immunity doctrine shields public officials from liability for civil rights violations so long as “their *103 conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … The qualified-immunity analysis consists of the following three inquiries: (1) "whether the plaintiff’s allegations, if true, establish a constitutional violation;” (2) "whether the constitutional right at issue was clearly

Howe v. Town of North Andover

854 F. Supp. 2d 131 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Apr 11, 2012

The judicially en-grafted doctrine of qualified immunity shields police officers from § 1983 liability if the constitutional right at issue was not “clearly established” at the time of the alleged violation. … In the unlikely event that a constitutional violation could be proved against either of them, qualified immunity would shield them from liability.

Estate of Gilmore v. Buckley

608 F. Supp. 554 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · May 10, 1985

At a minimum, no such duty was clearly established at the time of the incidents in this case, and thus the Bridgewater defendants are immune from liability for civil damages. 12 See Harlow v. … The court found that the defendants were entitled to qualified immunity because the duty of protection was not clearly established at the time of the alleged wrongdoing. Id.

Johnson v. Town of Nantucket

550 F. Supp. 2d 179 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Apr 7, 2008

Qualified Immunity The Supreme Court and the First Circuit Court of Appeals have set forth a preferred procedure for the analysis of qualified immunity in § 1983 claims. *184 First, the Court must ask whether the plaintiff … Second, the Court must determine whether the right was “clearly established at the time of the alleged violation”. Abrew-Guzman, 241 F.3d at 73 .

Perry v. Dickhaut

125 F. Supp. 3d 285 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Aug 27, 2015

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 would have … Therefore, to overcome qualified immunity, Plaintiffs rights must have been “clearly established” at the time of the violation.

Limone v. United States

271 F. Supp. 2d 345 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jul 17, 2003

Qualiñed Immunity Defendants Condon, Rico, and Walsh argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity, which shields government officials “from liability for civil damages if their actions did not violate ‘clearly established … Put another way, the qualified immunity issue as it is raised by the defendants does not require me to resolve any legal dispute about the contours of relevant “clearly established law.”

Ziskend v. O'LEARY

79 F. Supp. 2d 10 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jan 10, 2000

For his part, O’Leary argues that under controlling First Circuit precedent he is entitled to qualified immunity. See Harlow v. … Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 , 102 S.Ct. 2727 , 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982) (affording qualified immunity to government officials whose conduct did not violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a

LeBeau v. Town of Spencer

167 F. Supp. 2d 449 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Oct 2, 2001

Qualified Immunity The defendants argue, in the alternative, that the plaintiffs § 1983 claims must fail because the selectmen are entitled to qualified immunity. … The doctrine of qualified immunity shields government officials performing discretionary functions from liability for civil damages as long as their conduct does not violate clearly established federal statutory or constitutional

Plummer v. Town of Somerset

601 F. Supp. 2d 358 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Mar 9, 2009

Qualified immunity attaches to discretionary conduct of government officials that “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. … Consequently, the school defendants were granted qualified immunity. That remained the state of the law in 2005.

Crenshaw v. Town of Southborough

District Court, D. Massachusetts · Mar 29, 2018

The First Circuit applies the following two-part test to determine if qualified immunity applies: (1) whether the plaintiff has made out a violation of a constitutional right; and (2) whether that right was “clearly established … Therefore, even assuming that Chief Moran’s conduct was a violation of Crenshaw’s rights, absent a showing that such a violation was clearly established at the time that Chief Moran acted, she is entitled to qualified immunity

Bazinet v. Thorpe

190 F. Supp. 3d 229 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jun 3, 2016

Qualified immunity-protects police officers “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. … Courts use a two-part test to determine whether qualified immunity applies: (1) whether the facts alleged by the plaintiff make out a violation of a constitutional right; and, if so (2) whether the right was clearly established