Case law

MacDonald v. Town of Eastham

946 F. Supp. 2d 235 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · May 24, 2013

The doctrine of qualified immunity shields state officials from liability for damages under § 1983 where their conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which *239 a reasonable person … the right at issue was ‘clearly established’ at the time of the defendant’s alleged violation.”

McGuinness v. Dubois

893 F. Supp. 2 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jul 14, 1995

The defendants argued that, with the claim so limited, they were entitled to qualified immunity as matter of law. Upon consideration of the arguments presented, this Court agrees. … Maass, 12 F.3d 1444, 1457-58 (9th Cir.1993), the state of the law in this area does not clearly establish that the conditions of McGuinness’ confinement violated the Constitution.

Gavrilles v. O'CONNOR

611 F. Supp. 210 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jun 17, 1985

The case is now before the Court on defendants’ motion for summary judgment, which raises *211 the affirmative defense of qualified immunity. Under Harlow v. … The impermissibility of retaliating against an employee for engaging in union activities was clearly established by 1982.

Shabazz v. Cole

69 F. Supp. 2d 177 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jun 25, 1999

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, where the supervisor is not directly involved in the underlying violation, “the ‘clearly established’ prong of the qualified immunity inquiry is satisfied when (1) the subordinate’s actions violated a clearly established

Cronin v. Town of Amesbury

895 F. Supp. 375 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jul 25, 1995

Qualified Immunity In any event, Koelsch asserts the defense of qualified immunity. … The qualified immunity inquiry in this context is a familiar one: Qualified immunity shields government official performing discretionary functions from civil damages “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established

Maini v. Town of Norton

District Court, D. Massachusetts · Aug 25, 2023

Katz, 533 U.S. 194 (2001), a qualified immunity case involving allegations of the excessive use of force in restraining an unruly crowd of demonstrators protesting an appearance by the Vice President, the Supreme Court … Isbell, 207 F.3d 1253, 1257 (11th Cir. 2000) (trial court erred in refusing to grant qualified immunity where plaintiff could point to nothing ambit of reasonableness).

Penate v. Kaczmarek

District Court, D. Massachusetts · Dec 7, 2018

A defendant is entitled to the protection of qualified immunity when his “conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Kisela v. … Hughes, 138 S.Ct. 1148, 1152 (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).

Wilmot v. Tracey

938 F. Supp. 2d 116 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Mar 28, 2013

“The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials ‘from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … “[T]he second, ‘clearly established’ step of the qualified immunity analysis ... in turn, has two aspects.” Maldonado, 568 F.3d at 269 .

Maini v. Town of Norton

District Court, D. Massachusetts · Aug 28, 2023

Katz, 533 U.S. 194 (2001), a qualified immunity case involving allegations of the excessive use of force in restraining an unruly crowd of demonstrators protesting an appearance by the Vice President, the Supreme Court … Isbell, 207 F.3d 1253, 1257 (11th Cir. 2000) (trial court erred in refusing to grant qualified immunity where plaintiff despite being held against a van in a knee hold while being handcuffed could point to nothing more

Carey v. City of Fall River

708 F. Supp. 431 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jul 15, 1988

Thus, the court concludes that no constitutional counterpart of malicious prosecution or abuse of process was clearly established in 1983 and, therefore, the individual defendants are entitled to qualified immunity on this … The Supreme Court has found that provisions in police regulations will not serve to clearly establish federal law for qualified immunity purposes. See Davis v.

Lane v. First National Bank of Boston

687 F. Supp. 11 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · May 19, 1988

The meaning of “clearly established law” in the context of qualified immunity has been analyzed by the First Circuit in several cases, and in a recent decision the Court stated that, “in assessing a claim of qualified immunity … that the district attorney was entitled to qualified immunity.

Duca v. Martins

941 F. Supp. 1281 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Aug 20, 1996

Since defendants are entitled to qualified immunity on their federal .claims, and Duca has not identified any distinct right clearly established by state law, defendants are also entitled to qualified immunity on his Massachusetts … As demonstrated in the present section of this opinion, the typical non-Fourth Amendment qualified immunity analysis focuses on whether the particular right implicated is "clearly established.”

Alvarez v. Worcester

District Court, D. Massachusetts · Mar 27, 2020

Qualified Immunity The Court declines to dismiss Counts II or V on qualified immunity grounds.8 These claims relate to the fabrication of evidence and malicious prosecution based on this evidence … Condon, 372 F.3d at 48, Defendants have not shown entitlement to qualified immunity at this stage in the litigation.

Saint-Vil v. Alves

District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jun 7, 2023

Strickland is the clearly established federal law governing an ineffective assistance of counsel claim. See Williams v. … Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 391 (2000) (“It is past question that the rule set forth in Strickland qualifies as ‘clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United

DONALD M v. Matava

668 F. Supp. 703 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jan 30, 1987

QUALIFIED AND ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY 1. … to qualified immunity.

Campos v. Van Ness

52 F. Supp. 3d 240 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Sep 29, 2014

The doctrine of qualified immunity is also not restricted to questions of established law. … Therefore, the questions relating to qualified immunity are whether Van Ness’ conduct violated rights of Martins or Campos that were “ ‘clearly established’ at the time of the challenged conduct,” July 27, 2008, Plumhoff,

Hudson v. Maloney

326 F. Supp. 2d 206 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jul 23, 2004

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.” Harlow v. … Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 528 , 105 S.Ct. 2806 , 86 L.Ed.2d 411 (1985) (officers immune unless their actions were “clearly proscribed” by established law).

Cocroft v. Smith

95 F. Supp. 3d 119 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Mar 26, 2015

Whether Officer Smith Is Entitled To Qualified Immunity The doctrine of qualified immunity protects public employees “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … Officer Smith argues that he is entitled to qualified immunity because the right to be free from a retaliatory arrest was not clearly established at the time.

Jones v. Han

993 F. Supp. 2d 57 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jan 28, 2014

The qualified-immunity analysis employs a two-part test: (1) whether the facts alleged or shown by the plaintiff make out a violation of a constitutional right, and (2) whether the right at issue was clearly established at … “When a supervisor seeks qualified immunity in a § 1983 action, the ‘clearly established’ prong of the qualified immunity inquiry is satisfied when (1) the subordinate’s actions violated a clearly established constitutional

Ringuette v. City of Fall River

906 F. Supp. 55 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Nov 9, 1995

“Qualified immunity shields state officials exercising discretionary authority from civil damages ‘insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … has no qualified immunity from suit, presents a question of law... .