Case law

Strachan v. Ashe

548 F. Supp. 1193 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Oct 13, 1982

of a *1198 defense based upon qualified good faith immunity. … description of qualified immunity set forth in Scheuer v.

Prall v. City of Boston

985 F. Supp. 2d 115 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Nov 18, 2013

L. c. 268 § 34 was not clearly established at the time of the Prall’s arrest. … The Supreme Court has “held that courts may grant qualified immunity on the ground that a purported right was not ‘clearly established’ by prior case law, without resolving the often more difficult question whether the purported

Dantone v. Bhaddi

570 F. Supp. 2d 167 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jul 15, 2008

Bhaddi is entitled to qualified immunity, and that Dantone has failed to plead and/or establish an Eighth Amendment violation based on his medical treatment. … The right must be clearly established such that a reasonable official would be on notice that the conduct was unlawful and that the conduct violated the clearly established right. See Velez-Diaz v.

Norris v. Moroney

District Court, D. Massachusetts · Aug 17, 2023

Defendants assert further that even if Norris states a plausible claim to relief, they are entitled to qualified immunity because they did not violate clearly established law. Mot. to Dismiss Mem. 44 [Doc. … See Stock, 2021 WL 5016140 at *7 (holding that defendants were entitled to qualified immunity where the scope of Packingham was not clearly established as it applied to conditions of supervised release).

Ferreira v. Dubois

963 F. Supp. 1244 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Sep 18, 1996

Qualified immunity exists insofar as defendants’ “ ‘conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional law of which a reasonable person would have known.’ ” Elliott v. … Thus, even when rights are clearly established, “qualified immunity protects a governmental official ‘if it was objectively reasonable for the official to believe that his acts did not violate those rights.’ ” Russell v.

Lucia v. City of Peabody

971 F. Supp. 2d 153 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jan 30, 2013

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 first question under the qualified immunity inquiry is whether that right was clearly established in late April 2008, at the time of the relevant events.

Parker v. Town of Swansea

310 F. Supp. 2d 356 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jan 28, 2004

Having answered the first prong of the qualified immunity inquiry in the affirmative, the next inquiry is whether the right was “clearly established” at the time of the shooting. 7 This court concludes that it was. 2. … The Right At Issue Was Clearly Established “The relevant, dispositive inquiry in determining whether a right is clearly established is whether it would be clear to a reasonable officer that his conduct was unlawful in the

Demers Ex Rel. Demers v. Leominster School Department

263 F. Supp. 2d 195 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · May 16, 2003

Even if the law is clearly established, an official is entitled to qualified immunity if at the time of the challenged actions, such official’s belief that his or her actions were lawful is “objectively legally reasonable … such rights were not clearly established.

Pentlarge v. Murphy

541 F. Supp. 2d 421 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Mar 31, 2008

immunity. 10 The First Circuit employs a three-part procedure in order to determine whether a state actor is entitled to qualified immunity. … However, plaintiffs’ damages claim must fail on the second prong of the qualified immunity analysis.

Doe v. Town of Wayland

179 F. Supp. 3d 155 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Apr 13, 2016

“The doctrine of qualified immunity shields officials from civil liability so long as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitu *170 tional rights of which a reasonable person would have known … “Qualified immunity is available to the defendants if, at the time of the alleged violations, the law was not clearly established.” Savard v. Rhode Island, 320 F.3d 34 , 38 (1st Cir.2003).

Fisichelli v. Town of Methuen

653 F. Supp. 1494 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Feb 23, 1987

The Town Council-lors and the former director of the Me-thuen Industrial Finance Authority would, therefore, have qualified immunity if the federal rights they allegedly violated were not clearly established. … In this case, the statutory right that defendants are alleged to have violated was at the relevant time clearly established. The defendants are, therefore, not protected by qualified immunity.

Meagher v. Andover School Committee

94 F. Supp. 3d 21 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Mar 31, 2015

Therefore, McGrath is immune from liability under the doctrine of qualified immunity. … As the First Circuit has cautioned, “[b]ecause Pickering's constitutional rule turns upon a fact-intensive balancing test, it can rarely be considered clearly established for qualified immunity purposes.”

Soto v. Bzdel

223 F. Supp. 2d 332 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Aug 26, 2002

The court was well aware of Hope when it issued its decision and, in fact, cited Hope in the first step of its qualified immunity analysis. … In Hope , the Supreme Court elaborated on what is required for a particular right to be “clearly established” in the context of qualified immunity.

Brown v. Massachusetts

950 F. Supp. 2d 274 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · May 30, 2013

to the doctrine of qualified immunity. … “[T]he second, ‘clearly established,’ step of the qualified immunity analysis ... in turn, has two aspects.” Maldonado v. Fontanes, 568 F.3d 263, 269 (1st Cir.2009).

Ford v. Clarke

746 F. Supp. 2d 273 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Sep 30, 2010

“[T]he second, ‘clearly established,’ step of the qualified immunity analysis ... in turn, has two aspects.” Maldonado v. Fontanes, 568 F.3d 263, 269 (1st Cir.2009). … In support of their qualified immunity defense, the DOC defendants argue that Ford cannot satisfy either aspect of the “clearly established” step of the analysis. This court disagrees.

Piccone v. McClain

720 F. Supp. 2d 139 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jul 2, 2010

Because the court will find that qualified immunity applies, this memorandum will not reach the issue of absolute immunity. The First Circuit has a two-part test for determining entitlement to qualified immunity. … For the right at issue to be clearly established, the state of the law must be clear and the facts must clearly implicate the right at issue.

Boston Taxi Owners Ass'n v. City of Boston

187 F. Supp. 3d 339 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · May 20, 2016

While the Commissioner has not ■ convinced the Court that he is likely to succeed in his appeal with respect to qualified' immunity, the constitutional issue in this case is neither elementary nor well-established. … Defendant will suffer no substantial harm from proceeding directly with the case rather than waiting for the qualified immunity issue to be resolved on appeal.

Brust v. City of Worcester

947 F. Supp. 2d 143 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Sep 27, 2012

a defendant to file a late motion raising the defense of qualified immunity has the potential to cause unfair prejudice and costly delay. … Although defendants moved for the ruling on qualified immunity jointly, the only question presented was whether defendant Need-ham is entitled to qualified immunity. .

LaSota v. Town of Topsfield

979 F. Supp. 45 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Sep 15, 1997

Qualified Immunity In the performance of discretionary functions, government officials, as individuals, are “generally shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established … In the First Circuit, qualified immunity analysis involves two prongs: First, the court must determine, as a matter of law, whether the constitutional right in question was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation

Sheppard v. Aloisi

384 F. Supp. 2d 478 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Aug 11, 2005

Qualified immunity shields government officials performing discretionary functions from liability for civil damages when “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … As detailed above, the constitutional right at issue must be clearly established at the time of the putative violation to negate the protection of the qualified immunity doctrine.