Case law

Libby v. Marshall

653 F. Supp. 359 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Nov 26, 1986

The focus of the Court in Griffin was clearly on determining what acts were necessary for plaintiffs’ constitutional rights to be fulfilled. … Bristol County claimed that it possessed the Commonwealth’s immunity.

Gibbs v. SLM Corp.

336 F. Supp. 2d 1 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Sep 9, 2004

Laws ch. 93, § 54A(a) renders the absolute immunity provision inapplicable here. … Student loans under the Higher Education Act qualify as debts under the statute. See id. at 50 n. 1, 51.

Connor B. Ex Rel. Vigurs v. Patrick

771 F. Supp. 2d 142 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jan 4, 2011

Comply with recommendations of qualified professionals to improve essential services for the Plaintiff class; 4. Increase monitoring by caseworkers of the Plaintiff class; 5. … Sovereign Immunity. Defendant Deval Patrick, as Governor of Massachusetts, argues that the doctrine of sovereign immunity precludes all claims against him.

Cosenza v. City of Worcester

District Court, D. Massachusetts · Nov 4, 2021

Because it was not clearly established at the time of the alleged violation that the identification procedure was unconstitutional, the individual officers are entitled to qualified immunity. … Qualified Immunity “[G]overnment officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established

Mahon v. United States

795 F. Supp. 2d 149 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jul 7, 2011

The United States, however, bears the burden of establishing the applicability of the discretionary function exception. See Smith v. United States, 943 F.Supp. 159, 168 (D.R.I. 1996); see also Faber v. … The Management Policies dealing with special park uses, however, clearly contemplate such uses being authorized by permits issued directly by the Service to individuals. See Management Policies § 8.6.1.1.

Stone v. Worcester County Sherriffs Office

District Court, D. Massachusetts · Dec 17, 2020

Katz’s qualified immunity arguments. See Saucier v. … Qualified immunity attaches to discretionary conduct of government officials that “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”

Scottsdale Insurance v. Carrabassett Trading Co.

460 F. Supp. 2d 251 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Oct 31, 2006

Nonetheless, the record clearly indicates that the parties intended that Torres work at Carrabassett for an indefinite amount of time. … Co., 444 Mass. at 603 , 830 N.E.2d 186 (noting that a leasing firm’s client is not immune from tort claims according to the workers’ compensation act).

Reaves v. Department of Correction

District Court, D. Massachusetts · Sep 20, 2018

Qualified Immunity Because the Plaintiffs have confirmed that they are only seeking injunctive relief for Counts I and II, qualified immunity is not available as … Accordingly, I find that this is a constitutional right that is not clearly established and the individual Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity.

Smith v. Daou

District Court, D. Massachusetts · Mar 4, 2024

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 … the right at issue was clearly established at the time of the defendant’s alleged misconduct.

Martinez v. Hubbard

172 F. Supp. 3d 378 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Mar 18, 2016

to qualified immunity. … Qualified Immunity Because there is no identified defendant who can be held liable for any of the claims Martinez makes, I have no occasion to reach the availability of qualified immunity for any defendant.

Castro v. Beecher

386 F. Supp. 1281 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jan 7, 1975

examinations in 1968-1970 but who passed the 1972 interim examinations and were otherwise qualified; Group B consisted of persons on three eligibility lists established in 1970-1971; Group C consisted of minority candidates … In this respect the decree goes beyond the relief mandated by the Court of Appeals which, in its opinion, clearly contemplated that all appointments would be made on a ratio basis. 459 F.2d at 736-737.

Howard v. Malac

270 F. Supp. 2d 132 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jul 1, 2003

As noted above, this is a well-established right, the infringement of which clearly violates substantive due process. … As an initial matter, the Court notes that the “public function” and “symbiosis” doctrines are clearly inapplicable to this case.

De Armas v. Elsmore

District Court, D. Massachusetts · Mar 18, 2024

, and (2) the unlawfulness of their conduct was ‘clearly established at the time.’” … Alves moves for summary judgment based on qualified immunity.

Skinner v. Boston Housing Authority

690 F. Supp. 109 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jul 5, 1988

The Massachusetts Civil Rights Act is an extraordinarily broad remedy. 11 As yet, Massachusetts courts have not limited it by any doctrine of qualified immunity, by abrogating the concept of respondeat superior, or by granting … immunity for good faith resort to legal processes.

Chmielinski v. Massachusetts Office of the Commissioner of Probation

484 F. Supp. 2d 201 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Mar 22, 2007

Chmielinski objects to the Magistrate Judge’s analysis and contends that the Eleventh Amendment does not immunize governmental entities from equitable relief. His argument is unavailing. … The plaintiffs excerpt stops short of the operative language in that case which clearly states that such injunc-tive relief is “pursuant to Ex parte Young”. Id. at 12.

Lowd v. California Fund Management Co.

235 F. Supp. 486 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Nov 12, 1964

Defendant argues that service on a foreign corporation under the provisions of ch. 181, sec. 3A, can properly be made only upon corporations required to qualify under ch. 181, sec. 3. … Company dealt with service of pi'ocess under G.L. ch. 223, sec. 38, and Remington in its brief clearly conceded that it could have been, but was not, served with process under the provisions of Ch. 223, sec. 38.

Fantasy Book Shop, Inc. v. City of Boston

531 F. Supp. 821 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Feb 16, 1982

Clearly, CEDC is not performing a public function in renovating the Boylston Building, in opposing the granting of licenses to the plaintiffs, or in evicting tenants of that building. … Claim Under 42 U.S.C. § 1985 (8) 42 U.S.C. § 1985 (3) prohibits conspiracies to deprive any person of the equal protection of the laws or of equal privileges and immunities under those laws.

Securities & Exchange Commission v. Pinez

52 F. Supp. 2d 205 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · May 25, 1999

. § 401” in the context of abrogation of sovereign immunity); but see, e.g., MCI Telecommunications Corp. v. World Telecommunications, 1998 WL 85757 (S.D.N.Y.), at *1. … United States, 289 U.S. 1, 10 , 53 S.Ct. 465 , 77 L.Ed. 993 (1933), as an example of where the element of obstruction was “clearly shown.” Id.

D.H.L. Associates, Inc. v. O'Gorman

6 F. Supp. 2d 70 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · May 7, 1998

Eriksen’s opposition' to adult entertainment establishments bears upon the issue to be decided. … proof of any non-legislative act under color of law with a state-of-mind that would defeat qualified immunity- IV.

United States v. DiRoma

252 F. Supp. 886 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jan 19, 1966

Issue of Immunity More generally on the question of immunity, the statute involved, 15 U.S.C. § 77v(c), unambiguously states that no individual shall be prosecuted for any transaction concerning which he is compelled to testify … The statute clearly establishes as essential prerequisites to gaining immunity: 1) that the defendant actually claim his privilege against self-incrimination, and then 2) that he be compelled to make statements or give evidence