Case law

D'Ambrosio v. Methuen, City of

District Court, D. Massachusetts · Mar 31, 2019

To avoid summary judgment based on a qualified immunity defense, D’Ambrosio must show that: (a) defendants violated his constitutional rights; and (b) “these rights were so clearly established that a reasonable officer … Was the Fourth Amendment Right Clearly Established?

Cordero v. Pack

District Court, D. Massachusetts · Mar 19, 2019

Finally, the court finds neither Haecker nor Wynn is entitled to qualified immunity on these claims.2 “A government official sued under § 1983 is entitled to qualified immunity unless the official violated a statutory or … An official is protected by qualified immunity if the plaintiff (1) established a violation of a constitutional right and (2) at the time of the alleged violation the law regarding that violation was clearly established

Legasey v. City of Worcester

District Court, D. Massachusetts · Aug 31, 2018

Qualified immunity shields government employees conducting discretionary functions “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which … For qualified immunity to apply, the court must find that “the facts alleged or shown by the plaintiff make out a violation of a constitutional right, and…the right at issue was clearly established at the time of the defendant

Montrond v. Spencer

District Court, D. Massachusetts · Oct 29, 2021

Qualified Immunity “The Supreme Court has long established that, when sued in their individual capacities, government officials are immune from damages claims 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. Lucas

District Court, D. Massachusetts · May 14, 2018

Analysis Defendants contend that they are entitled to qualified immunity. … 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

United States v. O'Brien

994 F. Supp. 2d 167 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jan 17, 2014

cheated out of, qualified civil servants”); see also United States v. … Not all payments seeking favor, however, qualify as bribes under § 666.

In Re Robidoux

116 B.R. 320 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jul 30, 1990

Gouzoules’ affidavit was untimely filed and therefore was not even before the Bankruptcy Judge at the hearing on attorney’s fees, the Service falls far short of establishing that the Bankruptcy Court was clearly erroneous … This Court, therefore, remands the case to the Bankruptcy Court to adjust the rate at which the attorney’s fees will be paid to coincide with an established inflation indicator, or the standard $75 per hour rate established

Bunevith v. CVS Pharmacy

925 F. Supp. 89 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · May 16, 1996

To establish a prima fade case of discriminatory discharge in violation of the ADA, Bunevith must allege that he: 1) suffered from a disability, 2) was otherwise qualified to perform the essential functions of his employment … Bunevith’s qualification to perform the essential functions of his employment To establish the second element in his prima facie ease, Bunevith must allege that he was qualified to perform the essential functions of his employment

Oliveira v. Ellison-Lopes

District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jan 11, 2024

not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … right at issue was ‘clearly established’ at the time of defendant’s alleged misconduct.”

Cardillo v. Attorney General of United States

2 Mass. Supp. 612 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jul 31, 1981

As established in Board of Regents v. … Parole Commission, 593 F.2d 354, 356 (8th Cir. 1979) (qualified immunity); Nebraska Penal Inmates v. Greenholtz, 436 F. Supp. 432, 437 (D. Neb. 1976), rev’d on other grds, 442 U.S. 1 (1979) (quasi-judicial immunity).

Yacubian v. United States

952 F. Supp. 2d 334 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jul 8, 2013

Defendant argues that Juliand and MacDonald are both NOAA Enforcement Attorneys who do not qualify as “investigative or law enforcement officers.” … As discussed above, Defendant has sovereign immunity for EA Juliand’s conduct.

Galdos-Shapiro

District Court, D. Massachusetts · Oct 17, 2025

It would be a misapplication of the doctrine of qualified immunity to allow officers to escape liability because a set of rights had been so clearly established years prior, that current officers can consequently profess … Finally, as to qualified immunity for the officers, the court is persuaded that it has long been clearly established that government agents cannot use “the power of the State to punish or suppress disfavored expression,

Choy v. Brockton

District Court, D. Massachusetts · May 24, 2023

“The First Circuit has adopted a two-part test to assess qualified immunity.” Cosenza v. City of Worcester, 355 F. Supp. 3d 81, 94 (D. Mass. 2019). … Sidestepping the first prong of the qualified immunity test, Drugan and Warmington seek dismissal on the ground that the “constitutional right to be free from malicious prosecution was not clearly established until” nearly

Federal Deposit Insurance v. Gladstone

44 F. Supp. 2d 81 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Mar 11, 1999

It acknowledges that there are no Massachusetts cases directly on point, but it reasons that the Supreme Judicial Court (“SJC”) would establish the same rules for litigation brought by the FDIC as those established by the … Nor are the policy concerns the FDIC relies on so clearly one-sided.

Fleming v. Lowell Sun Co.

36 F. Supp. 320 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Nov 22, 1940

The relevancy of the records called for by the subpoena is clearly apparent in that the records asked for contained information as to the wages paid to employees and the hours worked by them; they are sufficiently and clearly … It is not immune from regulation of incidents of the newspaper business that do not restrict its freedom to publish.

United States v. Cincotti

678 F. Supp. 346 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jul 31, 1987

defendants’ interest in confrontation of witnesses and in challenging inferences to be drawn from evidence, the court gave an instruction to the jury as follows: Members of the jury, the defendants in this case have sought to establish … Defense counsel argue, first, that bad faith assertion of the qualified immunity should be treated as a per se violation of defendants’ rights justifying a new trial without regard to whether any harm may have resulted.

Brown v. United States

514 F. Supp. 2d 146 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Sep 26, 2007

Whether Brown’s argument has any secondary force depends on whether a utility pole qualifies as an “improvement” under the Statute of Repose. … The waiver of sovereign immunity is construed strictly in favor of the United States. Skwira v. United States, 344 F.3d 64, 71 (1st Cir.2003).

DiSessa v. Ryan

District Court, D. Massachusetts · Mar 10, 2020

Qualified Immunity Defendants also assert a defense of qualified immunity. … Similarly, Deveneau is not entitled to qualified immunity because the duty to intervene to prevent unnecessary and wanton excessive force by another officer is clearly established. Torres- Rivera v.

Chas. T. Main International, Inc. v. United States

509 F. Supp. 1162 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Mar 17, 1981

These cases when read carefully, allowing due regard for the different factual situations which gave rise to them, clearly, in the judgment of this writer, show an attitude and inclination on the part of the Supreme Court … The recognition, establishment of diplomatic relations, the assignment, and agreements with respect thereto, were all parts of one transaction, resulting in an international compact between the two governments.

Nextel Communications of the Mid-Atlantic, Inc. v. Town of Hanson

311 F. Supp. 2d 142 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Mar 26, 2004

The same interest that establishes the De-Francescos’ interest for Rule 24(a) purposes also establishes their standing for constitutional purposes. … Rotger-Sabat, 317 F.3d 45 , 61 & n. 5 (1st Cir.2003), because in this case, they clearly have established their standing. 7 .