Case law

Anderson Foreign Motors, Inc. v. New England Toyota Distributor, Inc.

492 F. Supp. 1383 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jul 10, 1980

See, for example, In re Multidistrict Vehicle Air Pollution, 9 Cir. 1976, 538 F.2d 231 , in which plaintiffs requested, inter alia, that defendants in a restraint of trade action establish a program for testing automobile … Such a remedy, in the Court’s view, was clearly outside the *1389 intended purposes of the Robinson-Patman Act.

Foster v. Murphy

211 F. Supp. 2d 354 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jul 16, 2002

, and (5) defendants are protected by qualified immunity. … The court has also previously addressed the issue of qualified immunity. See Docket No. 74 at 17.

Rogers v. Okin

478 F. Supp. 1342 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Oct 29, 1979

Indeed, a persuasive demonstration of good faith by a defendant may entitle him to qualified immunity from any award of money damages, despite the fact that his actions caused a constitutional deprivation. … These considerations suggest that, in varying scope, a qualified immunity is available to officers of the executive branch of government, the variation being dependent upon the scope of discretion and responsibilities of

Harvard Trust Co. v. United States

262 F. Supp. 860 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jan 23, 1967

Plaintiff Harvard Trust Company qualified as Executor under the will on July 10,1957, in Middlesex Probate Court. … to a widow pursuant to the provisions of Mass.G.L. c. 196, sec. 2, does not as a matter of law qualify for the marital deduction.

Sepulveda v. UMass Correctional Health Care

160 F. Supp. 3d 371 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Feb 5, 2016

In the first step, the court examines a variety of “structural” factors to determine whether the state “clearly structured the entity to share its sovereignty.” Id (internal quotations and citation omitted). … It is well-established that the MTCA’s waiver of sovereign immunity extends only to claims brought in state court.

Brown

District Court, D. Massachusetts · Sep 3, 2026

That is so because qualified immunity will shield Leslie and Lirette from liability unless it was clearly established, as of that date, that the search incident to arrest exception is inapplicable where (1) the officers … Barnes further argues that, in any event, he is protected by qualified immunity because it was not clearly established in 2021 that a duty to intervene applies outside the context of excessive force by a fellow officer.

Hayes v. Town of Dalton

District Court, D. Massachusetts · Mar 25, 2025

Qualified Immunity “Qualified immunity is a doctrine that shelters government officials from civil damages liability ‘insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established … “[O]fficers are entitled to qualified immunity under § 1983 unless (1) they violated a federal statutory or constitutional right, and (2) the unlawfulness of their conduct was ‘clearly established at the time.’”

Brown v. City of Brockton

District Court, D. Massachusetts · Sep 18, 2025

Plaintiffs respond that qualified immunity is “unavailable at the motion-to-dismiss stage,” [ECF No. 21 at 16], and that the Moving Defendants violated Plaintiffs’ clearly established rights of “freedom from retaliation … Qualified immunity protects public officials, in their individual capacity, “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable

Utility Contractors Ass'n of New England, Inc. v. City of Worcester

236 F. Supp. 2d 113 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Dec 23, 2002

The Supreme Court has settled upon a two-part standard for assessing challenges brought under the Clause, once the classification burdening out-of-staters is established. … This factor does not clearly favor the defendant — an injunction here certainly would not disserve the public interest.

Galvin v. Town of Yarmouth

470 F. Supp. 2d 10 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jan 23, 2007

Xiarhos would be entitled to qualified immunity on the federal and state civil rights claims. … violate clearly established law.

Sullivan v. Town of Walpole

District Court, D. Massachusetts · Mar 29, 2023

Thus, the defendants have qualified immunity with respect to the arrest of Edward Sullivan. … Feb. 13, 2012) (holding DCF employees entitled to qualified immunity).

Corbin v. Gillen

839 F. Supp. 2d 376 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Dec 30, 2011

Defendants raise a qualified immunity defense, which given the court's findings, is moot. See Pearson v. … Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 242 , 129 S.Ct. 808 , 172 L.Ed.2d 565 (2009) (where qualified immunity is raised "the judges of the district courts and the courts of appeals are in the best position to determine the order of decisionmaking

Commissioners v. Federal National Mortgage Ass'n

978 F. Supp. 2d 69 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Aug 9, 2013

local transfer taxes only if 1) they have inherent constitutional immunity or are federal instrumentalities, or 2) they are immunized by the enactment of a constitutional statute. … It is unnecessary for this Court to determine whether a congressionally created entity is a federal instrumentality qualified for implied constitutional immunity from taxation if that entity is already exempt pursuant to

Ford v. City of Boston

154 F. Supp. 2d 123 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jul 31, 2001

Sheriff Rouse’s Qualified Immunity For the reasons stated in the Class Summary Judgment Memorandum, I conclude that Rouse has established the defense of sovereign immunity for his role in the County strip-search, as the search … Ford must still establish the factual truth of this story at trial, but assuming she is able to do so, Massachusetts law does not grant the City immunity from her claim.

Crawford v. Blue

271 F. Supp. 3d 316 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Sep 21, 2017

reasonable reliance on existing law [i.e„ qualified immunity].” … In assessing a defense of qualified immunity, courts examine: “(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

Papadakis v. CSX Transportation, Inc.

233 F.R.D. 227 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jan 10, 2006

Export-Isbrandtsen Lines, Inc., 59 F.R.D. 148, 150-51 (E.D.Pa.1973) (“Obviously files which would tend to show a plaintiffs physical condition, how he moves, and the restrictions which are his, are highly relevant — perhaps they will establish … The doctrine creates a form of qualified immunity from discovery for such materials, but does not label them “privileged” and, thus, outside the scope of discovery under Rule 26(b)(1).

Kane v. Town of Sandwich

123 F. Supp. 3d 147 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Aug 18, 2015

The Town argues that "[e]ven though the plaintiff here did not proceed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 , but proceeded under USERRA itself, qualified immunity or something like it should be considered.” D. 15 at 15. … This Court declines to entertain this argument because even in the § 1983 context, a municipality like the Town (the only defendant here) does not enjoy a qualified immunity defense. Haley v.

Valcourt v. Hyland

503 F. Supp. 630 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Sep 4, 1980

Nevertheless, it has been established “that § 1983 is to be read in harmony with general principles of tort immunities and defenses rather than in derogation of them.” Imbler v. … Piphus, supra, 435 U.S. at 256-257 , 98 S.Ct. at 1048 . 15 Indeed, part of the rationale of the Supreme Court in rejecting the availability of a qualified good-faith immunity for municipalities in § 1983 damages actions was

Grendel's Den, Inc. v. Goodwin

495 F. Supp. 761 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Aug 14, 1980

Such statutes are clearly distinguishable. Section 16C does not impose such a flat statutory ban. Indeed, § 16C’s Establishment Clause defect exists because that statute does not impose a flat ban. … In Midcal, supra, 445 U.S. at 105 , 100 S.Ct. at 943 , a unanimous Supreme Court stated a two-part test for the establishment of Parker immunity: “[fjirst, the challenged restraint must be ‘one clearly articulated and affirmatively

Dusenberry v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts

District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jun 6, 2023

established for the purposes of qualified immunity. … Whether a public employee’s speech is entitled to First Amendment protections and thus, “clearly established” for the function of qualified immunity requires this Court to engage in