Case law

Hunt v. Weatherbee

626 F. Supp. 1097 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jan 23, 1986

In any event, this clearly is a factual issue that cannot be decided at this stage in the proceedings. 2. … No claim for relief will lie under § 1986 unless a cause of action can be established under § 1985. Hahn v.

Mallory v. Marshall

659 F. Supp. 2d 231 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Sep 22, 2009

Lebron Gonzalez, 909 F.2d 8, 13-14 (1st Cir.1990) (prison guard not entitled to qualified immunity where evidence at trial established that he stood by during a prisoner assault, and did not attempt to intervene or call for … In light of this conclusion, this court declines to address whether the Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. See Aguiar-Carrasquillo v.

Putnam v. Town of Saugus, Mass.

365 F. Supp. 2d 151 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Apr 7, 2005

to qualified immunity. … Vasapolli argues that he is shielded by qualified immunity because .he did not violate clearly established law. Id. (citing Fabiano v. Hopkins, 352 F.3d 447, 452 (1st Cir.2003)).

Perloff v. Symmes Hospital

487 F. Supp. 426 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Mar 20, 1980

If defendant hospital establishes that it was a charitable institution at the time of the claimed events in 1968 and 1969, Massachusetts law would bestow immunity from tort liability for those actions. Ricker v. … That argument is clearly foreseeable in the context of Reich but was rejected by the stated limitation of that case.

Welch v. Paicos

66 F. Supp. 2d 138 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Sep 2, 1999

Qualified Immunity The doctrine of qualified immunity protects “state actors whose behavior has violated plaintiffs’ rights as long as those rights were not at the time [of the violation] clearly established under the Constitution … Thus, the “classic question that a qualified immunity defense poses is whether the allegedly violated federal right was established with sufficient clarity that a reasonable government functionary should have conformed his

S.S. ex rel. S.Y. v. City of Springfield

146 F. Supp. 3d 414 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Nov 19, 2015

Defendants argue the BSEA finding that S.S. had been provided with FAPE in the LRE. conclusively establishes that S.S. was not a qualified individual with a disability. … Since *425 Plaintiffs have alleged facts from which such an inference can be made, they have also satisfactorily pled that S.S. was a qualified individual with a disability, thus establishing the first element of an ADA claim

Sietins v. Joseph

238 F. Supp. 2d 366 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jan 6, 2003

Although the Police Defendants raise qualified immunity as an alternative affirmative defense, the court does not reach this issue because it finds Mr. … Fenton, 891 F.2d 373, 383 (1st Cir.1989) (stating proper sequence of analysis in cases involving qualified immunity is to first determine if there has been a constitutional deprivation before considering qualified immunity

Antelman v. Lewis

480 F. Supp. 180 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Nov 13, 1979

of immunity would remain valid even if his order regarding attachment were ineffective. … In either event, plaintiff has failed either to allege or to support by affidavit his ability to establish the prima facie elements of the claims.

Appling v. City of Brockton

649 F. Supp. 258 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Dec 8, 1986

regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities … The House Report relied upon by the Day court clearly shows what Congress intended.

United States v. Zajanckauskas

346 F. Supp. 2d 251 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · May 9, 2003

It is undisputed that the immunity agreement in this case does not clearly and unmistakably subject the government to monetary liability for any breach. … proprietor distinction found in its earlier Kania opinion, but it also characterized that opinion as premised on the criminal/civil distinction: A decision of one of our predecessor courts, the Court of Claims, has previously established

MONTAE v. American Airlines, Inc.

757 F. Supp. 2d 47 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Nov 4, 2010

The MSP, which is a state agency, cannot be sued directly unless it has waived its sovereign immunity or Congress has unequivocally abrogated that immunity pursuant to Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment. … In wrongful arrest cases, there are two theories under which to establish ADA liability: 1) where the police wrongfully arrest someone with a disability because they misperceive the effects of that disability as criminal

Mass. Inst. of Tech. v. MASS. DEPT. OF PUB. UTIL.

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) [s]hall 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) [s]hall not discriminate against any qualifying facility in comparison to rates for sales to other

Diaz

District Court, D. Massachusetts · Oct 23, 2025

The doctrine of qualified immunity protects public employees “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … Defendant McGurn is therefore entitled to qualified immunity as to the claim for money damages, because it was not clearly established as of August 2019 that the First Amendment protected a prisoner’s right not to provide

Hullum

District Court, D. Massachusetts · Apr 1, 2026

Clearly Established The Court also concludes that Hullum has met his burden as to the second prong of the qualified immunity inquiry. … three or four circuits is sufficient to clearly establish the law). Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity.

Jacobs v. Town of Scituate

948 F. Supp. 7 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Nov 14, 1996

Agnew is protected from this claim by the doctrine of qualified immunity. See Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635 , 107 S.Ct. 3034 , 97 L.Ed.2d 523 (1987). … All his decisions were discretionary ones, and they did not violate any clearly established statutory or constitutional rights.

Santiago v. Keyes

839 F. Supp. 2d 421 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Mar 8, 2012

It is well established that the Eleventh Amendment bars actions by private individuals against a state or its agencies in federal court absent a waiver of sovereign immunity by the state or clear Congressional intent to abrogate … such immunity.

E.T. ex rel. Doe v. Bureau of Special Education Appeals of the Division of Administrative Law Appeals

169 F. Supp. 3d 221 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Mar 11, 2016

Federal and state officers sued under § 1983 enjoy qualified immunity “so long as their conduct ‘does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’ ” Mullenix … Qualified immunity shields government officials whose conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v.

DeNicola v. Potter

District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jun 30, 2020

Qualified Immunity “Because [Plaintiff] has failed to establish a constitutional violation on part of [Defendants] . . . the Court does not need to address their qualified … immunity argument.”

Northland Cranberries, Inc. v. Ocean Spray Cranberries, Inc.

382 F. Supp. 2d 221 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jun 10, 2004

“When statutory interpretation is at issue, the plain and unambiguous meaning of a statute prevails in the absence of clearly expressed legislative intent to the contrary.” … Nothing in that case suggests that foreign persons who are “engaged in the production of agricultural products” are not “qualified to act collectively” under the Capper-Volstead Act.

Bahiakina v. United States Postal Service

102 F. Supp. 3d 369 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Apr 30, 2015

Bahiakina cannot meet his burden of establishing that the Court has subject matter jurisdiction over his claim. “[T]he Postal Service enjoys federal sovereign immunity absent a waiver.” Dolan v. … The appeals process established by the Postal Service is, unfortunately, the end of the road for Mr. Bahiakina.