Case law

Mitchell v. City of Boston

130 F. Supp. 2d 201 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jan 26, 2001

Transit Auth., 124 F.3d 123, 130 (2nd Cir.1997) (refusing to dismiss a § 1983 claim that two officers violated the plaintiffs’ clearly established constitutional rights by conspiring to fabricate and forward to prosecutors … The defendants, putting all of their eggs in the absolute immunity basket, have made no argument on these motions that, absent success on this argument, they are entitled to qualified immunity.

Rubin v. Islamic Republic of Iran

541 F. Supp. 2d 416 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Mar 31, 2008

The next question is whether there is a qualifying “contest” sufficient to make the antiquities at issue here “blocked” under the regulations. … Whether a foreign sovereign’s immunity under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (“FSIA”), 28 U.S.C. § 1609 , may only be asserted by that foreign sovereign. 3.

Bourne v. Gardner

270 F. Supp. 3d 385 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Sep 7, 2017

immunity. … Here, the fact that Gardner and Simpson work as part of the same agency establishes that they are entitled to qualified immunity because it is unlikely that government officials within a single agency could conspire with

Furtick v. Medford Housing Authority

963 F. Supp. 64 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · May 6, 1997

Medford who do not qualify for a federal preference; and 4) non-residents who do not qualify for a federal preference. … “The responsibility for ‘clearly and specifically setting forth facts sufficient to satisfy the Article III standing requirements’ rests with the claimant.” Adams v.

Mitchell v. Massachusetts Department of Correction

190 F. Supp. 2d 204 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Mar 8, 2002

Under Rule 12(b)(1), the plaintiff, the party invoking jurisdiction, has the burden of proof to establish its existence. Murphy v. United States, 45 F.3d 520, 522 (1st Cir.1995). … To make out a Title II claim, Plaintiff must establish the following: “(1) that he is a qualified individual with a disability; (2) that he was either excluded from participation in or denied the benefits of some public entity

Canterbury Liquors & Pantry v. Sullivan

16 F. Supp. 2d 41 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Feb 3, 1998

With regard to possible immunity, I must decide, first, whether there is a clearly articulated and affirmatively expressed state policy that the restraint at issue is intended to serve. … A state may establish a regulatory scheme to displace free competition in order to serve some other, clearly stated public policy.

Davis v. Rennie

997 F. Supp. 137 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Feb 25, 1998

Zampini also seek a declaration that they are entitled to qualified immunity. … THE ISSUE OF QUALIFIED IMMUNITY Plaintiffs motion that none of the defendants is qualifiedly immune is denied, as is the motion filed by certain of the defendants seeking a declaration of their entitlement to qualified immunity

Chute v. City of Cambridge

201 F.R.D. 27 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jun 12, 2001

In cases arising under § 1983, qualified immunity will protect a public official from personal liability if that official acted in “good faith,” as defined objectively. … 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

Natal v. City of New Bedford

37 F. Supp. 2d 74 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Feb 23, 1999

Turgeon seeks summary judgment on grounds that (1) his use of deadly force was reasonable, and (2) he is entitled to qualified immunity. … rights could fall within the scope of qualified immunity.

Summers v. Harvard University

397 F. Supp. 2d 166 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Aug 4, 2005

Although Johnsen may have worked in the field of HIV/AIDS, she clearly had relevant experience in patient and clinician education, as well as infection control and state immunization programs. 7 She also had a Masters of … Because Nick's hiring was not clearly inappropriate, the fact that Summers may also have been qualified for the position does not support an inference of discrimination.

Whitfield v. Minter

368 F. Supp. 798 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Dec 26, 1973

. § 1983 to secure rights, privileges and immunities established by the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States and by Title IY, pt. A of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 601 et seq. … Summing up, therefore, this Court clearly has jurisdiction to hear the subject matter of the current complaint.

Massachusetts v. Wampanoag Tribe of Gay Head

98 F. Supp. 3d 55 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Feb 27, 2015

establish[ing] a waiver of sovereign immunity.” … The Tribe is clearly an adequate representative with respect to this interest.

Yong Tang v. Chertoff

689 F. Supp. 2d 206 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Mar 1, 2010

It was not a blanket immunity from all court scrutiny, as the government had argued. … This "odd position” is not unlike the position in which the Court finds itself in determining qualified immunity in a civil rights case, see Harlow v.

In Re Screws Antitrust Litigation

526 F. Supp. 1316 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Dec 4, 1981

Martin’s criminal-trial testimony is clearly hearsay under Fed.R.Evid. 801 for purposes of the forthcoming civil trial, for the series of statements which comprise his testimony clearly were not made by Martin while testifying … In light of Martin’s absence from the jurisdiction of this Court and his established unwillingness to testify voluntarily at trial, it is certain that at the time of trial Martin will be unavailable as defined in Fed.R.Evid

Altman v. Kelly

28 F. Supp. 2d 50 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Dec 7, 1998

Generally, public officials are entitled only to qualified immunity, rather than absolute immunity, for their conduct when they are sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 . … When prosecutors are performing administrative or investigatory functions, however, they are entitled only to qualified immunity. See id. 500 U.S. at 491 , 111 S.Ct. 1934 .

Joyce v. Town of Dennis

705 F. Supp. 2d 74 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Mar 30, 2010

the relevant rights are well-enough defined to preclude a finding of qualified immunity. … Such immunity is determined by a two-part test: 1) whether the facts alleged or shown by the plaintiff make out a violation of a constitutional right and 2) if so, whether the right was “clearly established” at the time of

Penate v. Kaczmarek

District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jan 24, 2019

Hughes, 138 S.Ct. 1148, 1152 (2018) (holding that qualified immunity protected a police officer in a Fourth Amendment context because the officer’s conduct did not violate clearly established law) (quotations omitted). … When a supervisor seeks qualified immunity in a section 1983 action, the “clearly established” prong of the qualified immunity inquiry is satisfied when (1) the subordinate’s actions violated a clearly established constitutional

SBT HOLDINGS, LLC v. Town of Westminster

541 F. Supp. 2d 405 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Mar 25, 2008

Government officials subject to suit are normally shielded from liability from civil damages only when their actions “do not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would … In contrast to this “qualified immunity,” a narrow class of government officials enjoy absolute immunity from suit.

Doe v. Town of Framingham

965 F. Supp. 226 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jun 4, 1997

Qualified immunity shields public 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. … Team members and school officials may well be eligible for qualified immunity, see Puffer v.

Capozzi v. Department of Transportation

135 F. Supp. 2d 87 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Mar 2, 2001

Qualified immunity All the individual defendants raise the claim of qualified immunity. … “Unless the plaintiffs allegations state a claim of violation of clearly established law, a defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled to dismissal before the commencement of discovery.” Mitchell v.