Case law

Caldwell v. Cambra

District Court, D. Massachusetts · Sep 10, 2025

As this due process right was clearly established in 1999, at the time of the alleged fabrication, qualified immunity does not bar Caldwell’s claim against them on this theory. Id. at 45, 47. … And because they make no argument that this right was not clearly established in 1999, Hayes and Gomes are not entitled to qualified immunity. D.

Fletcher v. Szostkiewicz

190 F. Supp. 2d 217 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Mar 8, 2002

for political reasons; and (2) that, in any event, Defendant is entitled to qualified immunity with respect to Count One. … Guillermo Rodriguez, 212 F.3d 69, 74 (1st Cir.2000)). 6 Furthermore, as Judge Ponsor held, “[Defendant’s argument that he is entitled to qualified immunity because [Plaintiffj’s right was not ‘clearly established’ under Harlow

Hi-Tech Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Cohen

277 F. Supp. 3d 236 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Oct 27, 2016

Levinsky’s, 127 F.3d at 133 (alterations in original) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted) (a private statement whose content does not clearly pertain to “a matter of inherent public concern” may nonetheless qualify … But Noerr-Pennington does not guarantee absolute immunity for petitioning conduct. See *244 McDonald v. Smith, 472 U.S. 479, 485 , 105 S.Ct. 2787 , 86 L.Ed.2d 384 (1985).

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.

Glanz v. Vernick

756 F. Supp. 632 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Feb 5, 1991

Vadnais had tested positive for Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV), associated with Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS). Mr. … Beth Israel’s ENT Clinic is clearly a “program or activity” as defined in this provision.

Massachusetts Institute of Technology v. Massachusetts Department of Public Utilities

941 F. Supp. 233 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Aug 27, 1996

It requires that rates established for QFs “(i) [s]hall'be just and reasonable and in the public interest; and (ii) [sjhall not discriminate against any qualifying facility in comparison to rates for sales to other customers … This rule provides that rates established for QFs “(i) [s]hall be just and reasonable and in the public interest; and (ii) [sjhall not discriminate against any qualifying facility in comparison to rates for sales to other

United States v. Gianelli

658 F. Supp. 2d 255 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Aug 21, 2009

For example, on July 1, 1993, AUSA Wyshak asked Gianelli a series of leading questions about the term “make-up” which on their face clearly establish that AUSA Wyshak had prior knowledge of the meaning of that term. … those machines were divided between Gianelli and the establishments in which they were installed.

Tolbert v. Clarke

685 F. Supp. 2d 244 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Feb 22, 2010

Clarke and Pepe move for summary judgement on the grounds that Tolbert has not exhausted his administrative remedies, and that they, in their individual capacities, are subject to qualified immunity. … Qualified Immunity In light of the foregoing, the issue of whether Clarke and Pepe are eligible for qualified immunity need not be reached. VI.

Flaherty v. Knapik

999 F. Supp. 2d 323 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Feb 21, 2014

Qualified Immunity Defendant argues that, even if his actions did violate Plaintiffs’ rights to free expression, he is entitled to the protection of the doctrine of qualified immunity. … Qualified immunity attaches where a government official’s action does not violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v.

Hilbert v. Aeroquip, Inc.

486 F. Supp. 2d 135 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Apr 12, 2007

This court is as qualified to evaluate the factors establishing federal jurisdiction as any other federal court. … Northrop has not met its burden of *149 establishing even a colorable defense of sovereign immunity. F.

United States v. Bulger

928 F. Supp. 2d 294 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Mar 4, 2013

That no jury right attaches to defendant’s claim of immunity is firmly established by binding precedent. … Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 526 , 105 S.Ct. 2806 , 86 L.Ed.2d 411 (1985) (noting in the context of § 1983 qualified immunity that “[t]he entitlement is an immunity from suit rather than a mere defense to liability; and like an

Perkins v. City of Attleboro

969 F. Supp. 2d 158 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Sep 17, 2013

“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 … be entitled to qualified immunity.

Kartell v. Blue Shield of Massachusetts

542 F. Supp. 782 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jul 7, 1982

The answer of the Supreme Judicial Court to the certified questions clearly disclose whether three of the challenged restraints are “clearly articulated and affirmatively expressed as state policy,” and thus meet the first … Royal Drug Company, 440 U.S. 205 , 99 S.Ct. 1067 , 59 L.Ed.2d 261 (1979), clearly establishes that the agreements in question here are not the “business of insurance” as required by the Act.

McCarthy v. Szostkiewicz

188 F. Supp. 2d 64 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Feb 25, 2002

Szostkiewicz’s argument that he is entitled to qualified immunity because McCarthy’s right was not “clearly established” under Harlow v. … Cabanillas, 238 F.3d 25, 35 (1st Cir.2001) (“Qualified immunity is an affirmative defense, and thus the burden of proof is on defendants-appellants.”).

Packish v. McMurtrie

539 F. Supp. 548 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · May 21, 1982

But the requirements of due process apply only to interests which qualify as protected interests. Id. Board of Regents v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564, 577 , 92 S.Ct. 2701, 2709 , 33 L.Ed.2d 548 (1972). … This language is clearly discretionary.

Cook v. United States

26 F. Supp. 253 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jan 31, 1939

The fact that the state has power to undertake such enterprises, and that they are undertaken for what the state conceives to be the public benefit, does not establish immunity. South Carolina v. … When immunity is claimed from a tax laid on private businesses it must clearly appear that the burden upon the state functions is actual and substantial, not conjectural. Willcuts v.

Brayton v. Monson Public Schools

950 F. Supp. 33 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jan 17, 1997

immunity. … The qualified immunity defense provides ample room for “erroneous decisions” and “mistaken judgments.” Wood v. Clemons, 89 F.3d 922 , 931 n. 9 (1st Cir.1996).

Gagne v. Reddy

104 F.R.D. 454 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Dec 6, 1984

Clearly defendants cannot establish their state of mind or their level of knowledge at the time of the incidents by the questioning of the plaintiff. 6 Therefore, to question the plaintiff in an attempt to establish the knowledge … Porter, 737 F.2d 368, 372 (4th Cir.1984) (citing cases which establish the right not to be beaten). This is a clearly established constitutional right that the defendants reasonably should have been aware.

Surprenant v. Massachusetts Turnpike Authority

768 F. Supp. 2d 312 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · May 9, 2011

The court notes that if Surprenant elects to pass through the Tobin Bridge or one of the Tunnels, she pays the same toll as any Massachusetts resident other than the small group of local Massachusetts residents who qualify … As the court noted in its February 4, 2011 Miemorandum, the prospective relief Surprenant had sought in her original Complaint was the establishment of a constructive trust guaranteeing an eventual payout should the class

Silva v. Spirito

566 F. Supp. 228 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jun 16, 1983

It is a well established principle of federal jurisdiction upon removal from state courts “that if the state court lacks jurisdiction over the subject matter or the parties, the federal court acquires none upon removal, even … This statute, providing that a state is entitled to a reconsideration of a determination by the Secretary that a state expenditure does not qualify for federal financial participation, is inapplicable under the circumstances