Case law

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).

Reinhold v. Schlesinger

379 F. Supp. 638 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jul 29, 1974

Finally, the applicant for CO discharge must establish the sincerity of his convictions. Failure .to meet any one of the three standards will prevent an applicant from qualifying for discharge as a CO. … Circuit, have clearly established that a late-blooming conscientious objection is not to be ruled invalid solely for that reason.

Lord v. Kelley

223 F. Supp. 684 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Nov 19, 1963

If the aggrieved person were successful, the propriety of a court restraining the United States, as distinguished from its officers, was not clearly established. … And the adjudication of the trial court is immunized from appellate review, not by statutory but by judicial exception. Di Bella v.

Wright v. Moniz

District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jun 17, 2024

Finally, they argue qualified immunity shields them from liability. … To overcome qualified immunity, Wright must show “(1) [Defendants] violated a federal statutory or constitutional right, and (2) the unlawfulness of their conduct was ‘clearly established

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

Farland v. Wall

91 F. Supp. 3d 74 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Mar 12, 2015

Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 , 114 S.Ct. 2364 , 129 L.Ed.2d 383 (1994) and/or because he is entitled to quasi-judicial immunity. … Because the alie- *78 gations in the amended complaint clearly establish that Farland’s request for injunc-tive relief relate to actions taken by Wall within the scope of his official duties as chairman of the’ Board, his

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

Clegg v. U. S. Treasury Department

70 F.R.D. 486 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jan 29, 1976

It is well-established law that the United States cannot be‘ sued without its consent, and that a court has no jurisdiction over such a suit. United States v. … The pertinent considerations for establishing the indispensability of a superior officer were elaborated upon in the later case of Williams v. Fanning, supra.

Cambridge Meridian Group, Inc. v. Connecticut National Bank (In Re Erin Food Services, Inc.)

140 B.R. 14 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Sep 18, 1991

That finding is not clearly erroneous. Nor is the issue one to be decided as a matter of law. … I conclude that these findings, which are not clearly erroneous, establish that the debt was not “incurred by the debtor in the ordinary course of business.”

United States v. Lattanzio

232 F. Supp. 3d 220 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Feb 8, 2017

Dec. 19, 2016), holding that armed robbery in Massachusetts does not necessarily qualify as a crime of violence. … As will be seen below, the documents before the court are insufficient to establish that this conviction was for assault with a dangerous weapon, rather than assault and battery with a dangerous weapon. .

Conservation Law Foundation, Inc. v. United States Environmental Protection Agency

223 F. Supp. 3d 124 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Mar 24, 2017

A separate section of the CWA establishes a permitting system for the discharge of pollutants from point sources. 33 U.S.C. §§ 1311 (a), 1342(a). … Instead, they are subject *127 to special permitting rules established by a 1987 amendment to the CWA.

Sun Life Assurance Co. of Canada v. Sullivan

206 F. Supp. 2d 191 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jun 25, 2002

ERISA defines an employee welfare benefit plan as any plan, fund, or program which was heretofore or is hereafter established or maintained by an employer.. .to the extent that such plan, fund, or program was established … To qualify as a QDRO, the order must “clearly specify” the following four items: (i) the name and the last known mailing address (if any) of the participant and the name and mailing address of each alternate payee covered

Goodall v. Worcester School Committee

District Court, D. Massachusetts · Sep 25, 2019

to qualified immunity unless the official violated a statutory or constitutional right that was clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct. … or consensus of cases by the circuit courts of appeal is persuasive authority to clearly establish a constitutional right)); Andrews v.

King v. Williams Industries, Inc.

565 F. Supp. 321 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Mar 30, 1983

Taking these facts as established for purposes of addressing Williams’ motion, the Court now turns to the legal arguments advanced by the parties. II. … In plaintiffs’ view, “Massachusetts has clearly enunciated a strong policy in deciding Ferriter .

Ward v. Westvaco Corp.

859 F. Supp. 608 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jul 6, 1994

For the most part, George has no problem doing what he’s asked to do, as long as he has guidelines clearly spelled out for him. … Westvaco asserts that the undisputed facts clearly demonstrate that age did not play a factor in eliminating Ward’s position.

Valentin v. Town of Natick

District Court, D. Massachusetts · Sep 27, 2022

Qualified Immunity Defendants argue that the individual defendants are entitled to qualified immunity from suit because “their conduct d[id] not violate … clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”

Miller v. Shawmut Bank of Boston, N.A.

726 F. Supp. 337 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Dec 5, 1989

The alleged racial slurs, public criticism and harassment at the workplace were clearly “conditions of continuing employment” and did not interfere with plaintiff’s right to make or enforce contracts. … The chart clearly reflects that the jobs of Customer Service Representative and Senior Personal Banker are considered to be significantly different jobs.

Long Term Care Pharmacy Alliance v. Ferguson

260 F. Supp. 2d 282 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Apr 1, 2003

Congress clearly intended for Section 13(A) to benefit beneficiaries and providers. … Maine, 118 F.3d 37, 54 (1st Cir. 1997) (explaining scope of sovereign immunity)-. Thus, irreparable injury exists here because sovereign immunity bars the possibility of recovering . underpayments wrongfully made.

DesVergnes v. Seekonk Water District

448 F. Supp. 1256 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Apr 14, 1978

Although such an entity may not be able to assert the defense of governmental immunity under all provisions of the Civil Rights Acts, it is well-established that the District’s municipal status imposes a jurisdictional barrier … The Court also refused to fashion a similar remedy under its federal common-law powers, citing the inconsistency of such relief with the doctrine of municipal immunity, established under § 1983 by Monroe v.

Pittsfield National Bank v. United States

181 F. Supp. 851 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Mar 3, 1960

A number of Massachusetts cases have clearly established that the words “comfort”, “support”, and “maintenance” create an objective and limited standard for measuring the right to invade principal. Thus, in Lumbert v. … Hassett, supra, powers similarly qualified were held to be exercisable only in accordance with the same narrow standard.