Case law

Rob Evans & Associates, LLC v. United States

9 F. Supp. 3d 165 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Mar 31, 2014

In connection with this, the court authorized the Receiver to open a bank account, called a Qualified Settlement Fund (“QSF”), to hold the monetary assets of the receivership as they were acquired. … However, the record of the Zimmerman litigation clearly showed otherwise, and this court specifically found to the contrary.

In Re Grand Jury Subpoena (Zerendow)

925 F. Supp. 849 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Oct 19, 1995

Some courts have afforded ordinary work product only a qualified immunity subject to a showing of sub *854 stantial need and undue hardship, while requiring a heavier showing to justify the production of opinion work product … Even under the more lenient standard of qualified protection, the government has not met its burden of establishing good cause for production of the testimony.

Afreedi v. Bennett

517 F. Supp. 2d 521 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Aug 20, 2007

Even if Probable Cause Had Been Lacking, Devlin Is Entitled To Qualified Immunity From Suit 10 The principle of qualified immunity shields a police officer from liability for civil damages when his conduct does not violate … clearly-established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.

Cryer v. Spencer

934 F. Supp. 2d 323 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Mar 21, 2013

Qualified Immunity Under RLUIPA Defendants argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity from monetary damages on the RLUIPA claims because Cryer has not shown a “substantial burden” on his free exercise of religion. … Qualified Immunity Next, as an additional ground for dismissal of Cryer’s § 1983 claims, defendants argue that even if his free exercise of religion was violated, qualified immunity protects the defendants (now limited to

Qualls

District Court, D. Massachusetts · Mar 31, 2026

clearly established law. … As explained in the preceding sections, defendants Haynes, Harden, Harris, and Keeler are entitled to qualified immunity as to Count I because the plaintiff has failed to establish that their conduct violated clearly established

United States v. Parcels of Real Property With the Building, Appurtenances, & Improvements Located at 255 Broadway, Hanover

795 F. Supp. 1225 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jun 25, 1992

The parties have not raised, and consequently I do not address, whether or to what degree the developing law of qualified immunity crystallized in Harlow v. … I note in passing, nonetheless, that the policy concerns behind the doctrine of qualified immunity, which immunizes objectively reasonable government conduct, resemble those that animate analysis of “reasonable cause” under

Benima v. Smithsonian Institution

471 F. Supp. 62 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jan 16, 1979

Finally, even if the complaint against Rosenthal stated a cognizable constitutional claim against him, he would be protected by qualified immunity. See Butz v. … Additionally, the claims against defendant Rosenthal are not cognizable, are overly broad and conclusory, are defeated by uncontroverted affidavit, and are insufficient to overcome Rosenthal’s qualified immunity.

Max-Planck-Gesellschaft Zur Foerderung der Wissen-Schaften E.V. v. Whitehead Institute for Biomedical Research

850 F. Supp. 2d 317 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Feb 7, 2011

Sovereign Immunity Under Chapter 93A Having established that UMass was engaged in trade or commerce, the application of Chapter 93A is still uncertain. … As such, I turn now to the question of whether UMass qualifies as a “person” under Chapter 93A and whether Massachusetts’ sovereign immunity exempts it from suit in federal court in the event that UMass is engaged in trade

Chiang v. Skeirik

529 F. Supp. 2d 166 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Dec 4, 2007

The officers have qualified immunity against any constitutional claims but they lose that immunity if they violate "clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … Neither party discusses qualified immunity in his/their brief, *172 and thus the Court will not address that issue at this time.

HOOTSTEIN v. Collins

670 F. Supp. 2d 110 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Nov 19, 2009

Plaintiffs also included a lengthy argument that the doctrine of qualified immunity should not serve as grounds for dismissal. … Defendant Spence's Motion to Dismiss did not raise a qualified immunity defense, and the court has not relied on this doctrine in any way in reaching its conclusion on this motion.

Hilchey v. City of Haverhill

233 F.R.D. 67 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Dec 22, 2005

In addition, they assert that the vagueness of those allegations prevents them from accurately determining whether qualified immunity or other defenses are available. … immunity *70 defense, or the need (or lack of need) for proof of illegal motive.

Rosario v. Brooks

877 F. Supp. 765 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Feb 21, 1995

Qualified Immunity Defendant argues, in the alternative, that he is entitled to qualified immunity as to the *771 issues of probable cause to arrest plaintiff and to seek a search warrant. … Under the doctrine of qualified immunity state actors are immune from damages under § 1983 “if they have performed discretionary functions falling within the scope of their authority and have done so in an objectively reasonable

Comfort Ex Rel. Neumyer v. Lynn School Committee

131 F. Supp. 2d 253 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Feb 12, 2001

Of the causes of action brought by the plaintiffs against the Commonwealth, Congress has clearly abrogated state sovereign immunity only for suits brought under Title VI of the Federal Civil Rights Statute, 42 U.S.C. § 2000d … McCrary, 427 U.S. 160 , 96 S.Ct. 2586 , 49 L.Ed.2d 415 (1976), the Supreme Court held that § 1981 prohibits private schools from excluding children who are qualified for admission, solely on the basis of race, nothing in

Wampanoag Tribe of Gay Head v. Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination

63 F. Supp. 2d 119 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Sep 7, 1999

Discussion It has been long established that tribes of Native people, recognized as such by the United States, enjoy an inherent sovereignty. See Maynard v. … A well-established corollary to the concept of tribal sovereignty is that tribes of Native Americans enjoy a sovereign’s common-law immunity from suit. Santa Clara Pueblo v.

Nobile v. Massachusetts

675 F. Supp. 2d 214 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Dec 22, 2009

The Court determined that CMS “... failed to meet its burden to establish that it is an ‘arm of the state’ immune from § 1983 liability.” Austin, 604 F.Supp.2d at 689 . … So at this juncture, NaphCare has not established an entitlement to immunity. It is unclear whether it would be able to.

Eckl v. City of Boston

2 Mass. Supp. 160 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Feb 25, 1981

immunity. … Corporacion de Renovacion Urbana y Vivienda, 554 F.2d 1210 (1st Cir. 1977), it is precluded by a finding of qualified immunity.

Puffer v. Raynolds

761 F. Supp. 838 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jun 26, 1990

Even assuming a valid § 1983 claim against members of the school board, they would still be protected by the doctrine of qualified immunity. Schmidt v. … Under the standard for evaluating claims of qualified immunity erected in Harlow v.

John v. Russo

455 F. Supp. 2d 1 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Oct 13, 2006

A state court decision is contrary to clearly established Supreme Court precedent if the state court arrives at a conclusion opposite that reached by the Supreme Court on a question of law or if the state court decides a … In adopting the totality of the circumstances analysis when determining the voluntariness of John’s confession, the state court did not apply law which was contrary to clearly established Supreme Court precedent.

Burns v. United States

618 F. Supp. 882 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Sep 4, 1985

Even if venue is appropriate, however, plaintiff’s Bivens claim must be dismissed because plaintiff’s allegations fail to pierce defendant’s qualified immunity. … Defendants are immune from liability for civil damages unless their conduct violated “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v.

Operation Rescue National v. United States

975 F. Supp. 92 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Aug 27, 1997

included, or clearly implied, in the Constitution. … Thus, under established standards, its claim of unconstitutionality fails.