Case law
Opinions from 1658 to today.
3,024 results
1.28s
District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jun 21, 2024
Qualified Immunity Generally The doctrine of qualified immunity protects public employees “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … In the absence of any such clearly established right, the officers are entitled to qualified immunity. Accordingly, Count 3 as to the individual defendants will be dismissed. 4.
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, D. Massachusetts · Mar 21, 2019
Defendants argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity. The First Circuit has adopted a two-part test to assess qualified immunity. … The second aspect of the clearly established prong requires the Court to assess “whether an objectively reasonable official would have believed that the action taken violated that clearly established constitutional right
Cited 0 timesUnknown403 F. Supp. 99 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Nov 12, 1975
Bumberg’s injuries and subsequent death were clearly “service-connected.” … Military discipline is clearly only one factor to be considered in applying the Feres doctrine.
Cited 10 timesPublishedEgan v. Athol Memorial Hospital
971 F. Supp. 37 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Mar 28, 1997
Furthermore, the statute clearly states that failure to meet its conditions of notice does not, in itself, constitute failure to meet the statutory standard. 42 U.S.C. § 11112 (b). … State Law Immunity The issue of state law immunity, granted pursuant to M.G.L.c. 111, § 203(e), need not be addressed because it has already been determined that immunity is granted under HCQIA.
Cited 23 timesPublishedDistrict Court, D. Massachusetts · Mar 27, 2025
Qualified Immunity Framework Because Defendant has raised a qualified immunity defense, Plaintiff bears the “burden of showing that qualified immunity does not apply.” Sargent v. … “Qualified immunity protects government officials, … from liability when they act under color of state law, Gray v.
Cited 0 timesUnknownJohnson v. Sheriff Department Plymouth
District Court, D. Massachusetts · Nov 12, 2019
Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, “government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … Determining whether a right is “clearly established” is a two-party inquiry.
Cited 0 timesUnknown115 F. Supp. 3d 184 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jul 21, 2015
Williams does not address the City’s assertion that it is immune from liability for intentional torts and addresses the City’s discretionary function argument in a cursory manor. … At this stage of the proceedings, the Court does not have sufficient facts to determine whether Bisceglia would be entitled to qualified immunity of the facts are as alleged by the Plaintiff.
Cited 5 timesPublishedAmadi v. Department of Children and Families
District Court, D. Massachusetts · Oct 26, 2018
[Q]ualified immunity protects government officials from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights … Qualified immunity is applicable unless the official violated a constitutional right that was clearly established at the time of the alleged misconduct.
Cited 0 timesUnknownO'Neil v. Canton Police Department
District Court, D. Massachusetts · Dec 20, 2024
Qualified immunity shields “government officials performing discretionary functions . . . from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights … In the absence of a clearly established right, the Court concludes that the individual Defendants’ actions were reasonable and fall within the protection of qualified immunity.
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, D. Massachusetts · Sep 13, 2021
Nov. 10, 2011), to find that a clearly established constitutional right to be free from threats of arrest and criminal charges defeated his qualified immunity. … See D. 45 ¶ 9 (“[i]n a qualified immunity analysis, . . .the Sanchez case does not support Plaintiff’s MCRA claim”); ¶ 16 (“[m]oreover, [Sanchez] cannot defeat qualified immunity because the facts are not similar to the
Cited 0 timesUnknown91 F. Supp. 2d 141 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Dec 23, 1999
The conclusion that Flemmi had received enforceable promises of immunity concerning the electronic surveillance conducted at 98 Prince Street, Vanessa’s, and 34 Guild Street is not qualified by the fact that the FBI may not … The court has considered whether the conclusion that Flemmi had an immunity agreement concerning the evidence intercepted at 98 Prince Street, Vanessa’s, and 34 Guild Street is qualified by the principle that agreements that
Reversed in part by United States v. Stephen J. Flemmi, 225 F.3d 78 (2000)Cited 62 timesPublished294 F. Supp. 198 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Dec 11, 1968
The plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment to the effect that any law or laws establishing liability for service in a war “not authorized by Congress” is unconstitutional. … He also seeks an injunction “against operation of the Tonkin Resolution” and/or the “Universal Military Training and Service Act” insofar as they operate to abridge his immunity to involuntary servitude.
Cited 2 timesPublished84 F. Supp. 2d 218 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Feb 15, 2000
On December 6, 1999, after a conference was held to establish a briefing schedule, the government filed an opposition and a cross motion for summary judgment. … Judge Harrington clearly stated that sovereign immunity would preclude a tort claim if that was what Larson had intended to allege in Count III of the Complaint.
Cited 1 timesPublishedDistrict Court, D. Massachusetts · Aug 31, 2018
“A government official sued under § 1983 is entitled to qualified immunity unless the official violated a statutory or constitutional right that was clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct … Finding that the first prong of the qualified immunity test is satisfied, the court now turns to the issue of whether “the violated right was clearly established at the time that the offending conduct occurred.”
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, D. Massachusetts · Nov 14, 2023
Pretermination Hearing Because the interlocutory appeal concerned qualified immunity, the First Circuit needed to identify what were “clearly established statutory or constitutional … But this court reached one further conclusion of fact and law not addressed by the First Circuit (and with no impact on the qualified immunity analysis where the law concededly is not clearly established), namely, that
Cited 0 timesUnknown902 F. Supp. 278 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jul 6, 1995
HUD advertised the six month positions at salary grade levels of five and seven. 8 By letter dated July 25, 1991, HUD rejected plaintiffs application because he lacked the necessary grade point average to qualify under the … Given the legal nature of the argument, neither party submitted affidavits outside the verified complaint to establish the factual background.
Cited 9 timesPublished985 F. Supp. 197 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Nov 5, 1997
The government recommends that this conflict be resolved by requiring that the defendants establish their financial eligibility for appointment of counsel in an adversary hearing in which they would be provided use immunity … “A person is ‘financially unable to obtain counsel’ within the meaning of subsection (b) of the CJA if his net financial resources and income are insufficient to enable him to obtain qualified counsel.
Cited 12 timesPublished897 F. Supp. 649 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Sep 1, 1995
immunity defense. … In addition, one may ask whether an officer may be considered to have acted in "good faith” if it is clearly established that the ordinance under which he or she was acting was unconstitutional.
Cited 3 timesPublishedUnited States v. City of Springfield
190 F. Supp. 817 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jan 26, 1961
In none of them was there any provision comparable to § 607 which could be interpreted as permitting the application of any state rule establishing any priority of liens. … Clearly this is not the type of interest which Massachusetts intended to make a part of the tax due to the city. The motion of the United States for summary judgment is denied.
Cited 8 timesPublished898 F. Supp. 2d 301 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Sep 19, 2012
“A foreign sovereign will not be found to have waived its immunity unless it has clearly and unambiguously done so.” World Wide Minerals, Ltd. v. Republic of Kazakhstan, 296 F.3d 1154, 1161-62 (D.C.Cir.2002). … Here, while the 1998 Agreement established fiduciary duties owed by UTI-Co to Ukraine, it did not establish the opposite.
Cited 12 timesPublished
Ask Donna