Case law

Catrone v. Thoroughbred Racing Associations of North America, Inc.

727 F. Supp. 717 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Dec 19, 1989

As noted above, once the TRA and TRPB have established their actions were protected by a qualified privilege, the burden at trial shifts to Catrone to show that the TRA and TRPB abused the privilege by recklessly publishing … The cover letter produced by Catrone is clearly addressed to Richard McLaughlin, the state steward at Suffolk Downs in 1981.

Armor Elevator Co., Inc. v. Phoenix Urban Corp.

493 F. Supp. 876 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jun 30, 1980

Sovereign immunity, unless waived, protects the United States and its officers and agencies. … immunity potentially applicable in the state superior court is suggested.

Clergeau v. Department of Correction

District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jan 27, 2024

Qualified immunity shields government officials “from liability for civil damages” when “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known … However, Defendants would not be entitled to qualified immunity if the facts establish that Clergeau continued to be beaten well after the officers knew the use of force was no longer necessary. Hope v.

Gebre v. Rice

462 F. Supp. 2d 186 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Nov 21, 2006

Our cases have long recognized the power to expel or exclude aliens as a fundamental sovereign attribute exercised by the Government’s political departments largely immune from judicial control. … Moreover, it is one of the earliest cases on the topic and was issued in a circuit that since has clearly rejected its approach. See Iddir, 301 F.3d 492 (7th Cir.2002).

Tomaselli v. Beaulieu

967 F. Supp. 2d 423 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Aug 30, 2013

Varian Assocs., Inc., 436 Mass. 217 , 763 N.E.2d 1053 (2002), relied on by the plaintiffs, to qualify as a continuing tort there must be “ ‘recurring tortuous or unlawful conduct,’ ” a continuing tort “ ‘is not established … Nor will the court address the defendants' claims of qualified immunity. .

Mulloy v. United States

884 F. Supp. 622 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Mar 31, 1995

The Inspector General’s report indicated that six recruiting experts “clearly opined that had any one person involved with PVT Gates’ enlistment process complied with established policies, regulatory guidance, proper procedures … Bembenista while she was in its custody, since she was clearly in no position to protect herself.

Abbott Biotechnology Ltd. v. Centocor Ortho Biotech, Inc.

35 F. Supp. 3d 163 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Apr 16, 2014

Weinblatt’s contribution was merely an explanation of known concepts, and therefore he does not qualify as an inventor. Dr. … All told, the record does not clearly resolve the complex questions of fact regarding the adequacy of the written description.

Baptista v. Hodgson

District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jan 24, 2019

Finally, “[u]nder the doctrine of qualified immunity, police officers are protected ‘from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which … To defeat qualified immunity, “‘the facts alleged or shown by the plaintiff” must ‘make out a violation of a constitutional right’ and the right must have been ‘clearly established’ at the time of the defendant’s alleged

Richards v. City of Lowell

472 F. Supp. 2d 51 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jan 31, 2007

In any event, the record indicates that the MOA did not clearly define the respective roles of the City and the GLWIB in carrying out the purposes of the WIA. … Moreover, Przydzial and McQuaid argue that even if they violated Richards’ constitutional rights, they are shielded from liability by the doctrine of qualified immunity.

Rivera v. Nolan

596 F. Supp. 2d 162 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Feb 9, 2009

A decision is “contrary to” clearly established federal law “if the state court arrives at a conclusion opposite to that reached by [the Supreme Court] on a question of law or if the state court decides a case differently … The Merits The clearly established federal standard at issue here has been set out in Brady and its progeny.

United States v. Duval

957 F. Supp. 2d 100 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jul 17, 2013

Accordingly, if Shepard-approved documents do not clearly identify the specific offense of conviction, “the conviction may only serve as a predicate offense if each of the possible offenses of conviction would qualify as … Duval’s decision to assault the victim a second time after walking away establishes an intentional, as opposed to reckless, mens rea.

Natriello v. Flynn

837 F. Supp. 17 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Nov 18, 1993

To prevail in an action brought under § 1983 a plaintiff must show that he or she *19 was deprived of a right, privilege or immunity secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States. … Moreover, an examination of the relief sought in plaintiffs Count II in this case clearly indicates that it is based upon the loss suffered by the decedent’s relatives due to Mr. Na-triello’s death.

V.R. Streeter v. United States

150 F. Supp. 3d 82 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Dec 8, 2015

Streeter' and her attorney at that time established an escrow account in the' name of the designated escrow agents, not in’ the name of Wissa. Id. ¶ 11. … Section 7422(a) also waives sovereign immunity for refund suits. See Dickow, 740 F.Supp.2d at 234-35 .

Rolland v. Cellucci

52 F. Supp. 2d 231 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jun 4, 1999

, 448 U.S. 1 , 100 S.Ct. 2502 , 65 L.Ed.2d 555 (1980), except “where Congress has foreclosed such enforcement of the statute in the enactment itself and where the statute did not create enforceable rights, privileges or immunities … In essence, “[t]he relevant question is whether the action ... whose reasonableness is commanded has been clearly delineated and is *240 susceptible of judicial enforcement.”

Anderson v. Potter

723 F. Supp. 2d 368 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jul 13, 2010

[the] evidence did not tend to establish a discriminatory purpose”). At most, Anderson has established a misapplication of the CBA and related rules—a mere “business error.” … The trial judge must accept all admissible evidence that favors the non-moving party and all other clearly undisputed evidence, ignore the rest, and indeed must draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the *373 non-moving

Rennie v. United Parcel Service

139 F. Supp. 2d 159 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · May 10, 2001

The instant case is clearly a reasonable accommodation case, not a discriminatory discharge case. … Is Rennie a qualified individual with a disability? There is little dispute that Rennie is a qualified individual with a disability under the terms of the ADA and M.G.L. c. 151B.

Hudson v. Dennehy

568 F. Supp. 2d 125 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jul 25, 2008

The court found that the defendants were exempt from any claims of monetary damages under qualified immunity. Hudson v. Maloney, 326 F.Supp.2d 206, 214 (D.Mass.2004). … Congress clearly anticipated that the PLRA would apply to RLUIPA claims: "Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to amend or repeal the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (including provisions of law amended by that

Penate v. Kaczmarek

District Court, D. Massachusetts · Sep 27, 2018

immunity because this right was not clearly established at the time of Plaintiff’s trial. … (2018) (holding that qualified immunity protected a police officer in a Fourth Amendment context because the officer’s conduct did not violate clearly established law) (quotations omitted).

Stone v. Worcester County Sherriffs Office

District Court, D. Massachusetts · Mar 26, 2019

Qualified Immunity/Good Faith Defense Both Defendants argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity. … Qualified immunity protects public officials, acting in their individual capacity, “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of

Leet v. Cellco Partnership

480 F. Supp. 2d 422 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Mar 27, 2007

“This section has been called ‘the absolute immunity provision’ which, if applicable, bars any state law claim based on conduct which is governed by § 1681s-2.” … Section 1681h(e) suggests not that Congress has limited actions brought in all areas regulated by the FCRA but that defendants will have qualified immunity from actions based on information disclosed pursuant to certain provisions