Case law

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.

Nesbitt v. City of Methuen

District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jun 26, 2018

of a constitutional right” or the constitutional right was not “clearly established” at the time of the defendant’s alleged violation. … Scherer, 468 U.S. 183, 196 n.14 (1984) (discussing the ministerial duty exception to qualified immunity).

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

In Re the Application of Kingsley

614 F. Supp. 219 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jul 12, 1985

.-, 105 S.Ct. 2806 , 86 L.Ed.2d 411 (1985) (qualified immunity available where law not clearly established at time of violation). … that the harm to him of denying the injunction outweighs the harm to the opposing party of granting the injunction; 3) movant must prove he is likely to prevail at trial; and 4) movant must establish that the public interest

Riverdale Mills Corp. v. American Modern Home Insurance

122 F. Supp. 2d 114 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Nov 29, 2000

It also referenced April 16, 1996 as the date of loss but clearly related to the April 5 flood because it referred to “underground structures” which were not involved in the April 16 flood. … The response of NFS, although again referencing April 16, 1996 as the date of loss, clearly related to the claim arising out of the April 5 flood.

Courtemanche v. Motorola Solutions, Inc.

District Court, D. Massachusetts · May 12, 2025

MSP relies on cases involving qualified immunity, not sovereign immunity, to argue that it should be shielded from discovery. … Regarding immunity under the doctrine of qualified immunity, courts have recognized, “[w]hile ‘there is a strong public interest in protecting public officials from the costs associated with the defense of damages actions

Bourne v. Gardner

District Court, D. Massachusetts · Apr 9, 2021

He instead contends that a recent decision by the United States Supreme Court indicates that defendants are not protected by the doctrine of qualified immunity. … In the R&R accepted and adopted by this Court in February, 2021, the magistrate judge specifically declined to address the qualified immunity arguments made by defendants because

Thomas v. Hedderman

District Court, D. Massachusetts · Dec 14, 2022

“Qualified immunity protects government officials from trial and monetary liability unless the pleaded facts establish ‘(1) that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) that the right was ‘clearly … Even if the officers did not have probable cause, however, there was not a violation of a clearly established right because a police officer is entitled to qualified immunity “so long as the presence of probable cause

Vickowski v. Hukowicz

201 F. Supp. 2d 195 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Mar 13, 2002

Qualified Immunity Finally, Defendants argue that qualified immunity protects Hukowicz from individual liability with respect to Counts I and II. … “Qualified immunity shields government officials performing discretionary functions from civil liability for money damages when their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which

Middlesex Savings Bank v. Johnson

777 F. Supp. 1024 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Sep 9, 1991

The Judgment Creditors did not qualify as “judgment lien creditors” on July 19, 1989 — the date the United States filed its notice of tax lien. … Section 2410 waives the sovereign immunity of the United States so as to permit its joinder as a party in certain cases where a lien is involved.

O'LEARY v. Provident Life and Accident Ins. Co.

456 F. Supp. 2d 285 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Oct 20, 2006

The present case, however, is clearly distinguishable. … Thus, even if O’Leary established the policy, it still qualifies as an ERISA plan because the Fund maintained it. 8.

Fairbanks v. Danvers, Town of

District Court, D. Massachusetts · May 10, 2019

Qualified immunity shields government officials from civil liability unless 1) the plaintiff’s allegations establish a violation of a protected right, 2) that right was clearly established … should have been aware of its parameters and thus defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity.

Fofana

District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jan 27, 2026

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity protects public officials in their individual capacity and may shield an officer from civil liability unless the officer violates clearly … Because qualified immunity is an immunity from suit, an officer's claim of qualified immunity “ought to be resolved as soon as possible in [the] litigation.” Norton v. Rodrigues, 955 F.3d 176, 183 (1st Cir. 2020).

Minarik Elec. Co. v. Electro Sales Co., Inc.

223 F. Supp. 2d 334 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Sep 26, 2002

The Standard The applicable standard when deciding a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), Fed.R.Civ.P., is firmly established. … A court's decision granting summary judgment qualifies as a final judgment for res judicata purposes: "It is well established that summary judgment is a final judgment on the merits for purposes of res judicata.

Jenkins v. City of Taunton

District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jan 8, 2018

After surveying the clearly established law in the context of these and other facts in the record construed in plaintiff’s favor, this court found that such law “would have given a reasonable … Finally, although mindful that qualified immunity is an immunity from suit as well as monetary damages, the denial of qualified immunity at the summary judgment stage does not foreclose

American Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. IMR Capital Corp.

888 F. Supp. 221 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · May 10, 1995

Has Massachusetts Clearly Articulated a Policy? … I agree with NET that its tariffed rates, which are the product of an extensive investigation and review by the DPU, express a clearly articulated and actively supervised state policy, and are therefore immune from antitrust

Penate v. Kaczmarek

District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jun 17, 2022

“[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.’” … In this court’s view, the focus of the qualified immunity analysis for purposes of determining whether Plaintiff had a clearly established Brady right to have Defendant turn over the ServiceNet Diary Card should be on

Donovan v. Pangallo

District Court, D. Massachusetts · Oct 20, 2023

Defendant argues, in the alternative, that even if he violated the Donovans’ constitutional rights, the rights were not clearly established, and he is therefore entitled to qualified immunity. Def.’s Mem. 10 [Doc. … Even if they had, qualified immunity would bar the claims. The Verified Complaint [Doc.

O'CONNELL v. Foster Wheeler Energy Corp.

544 F. Supp. 2d 51 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Apr 7, 2008

The affidavits and attached exhibits clearly establish a plausible federal contractor defense. The analysis required by the first and second elements of the Boyle defense are closely tied. … The Sargent Affidavit is relevant to establishing the historical pervasiveness of Navy control over all aspects of shipbuilding contracts. 8 Considered together, the affidavits reasonably establish that the specifications