Case law
Opinions from 1658 to today.
1,873 results
0.84s
410 Mass. 878 · Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · Aug 12, 1991
Qualified immunity. We consider first whether Furtado and Dr. Falkoff are immunized from liability as matter of law. We conclude that they are immunized. … While the plaintiff is correct when she argues that the Aguilar-Spinelli requirements were clearly established at the time Furtado applied for the warrant, that is not sufficient to preclude Furtado from using a qualified
Cited 48 timesPublishedO'MALLEY v. Sheriff of Worcester County
415 Mass. 132 · Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · May 4, 1993
To overcome the defendants’ qualified immunity, the plaintiffs must show that the defendants directly participated in violating the plaintiffs’ “clearly established” rights. Anderson v. … We hold that, as a matter of law, the plaintiffs’ allegations do not defeat the Commissioner’s qualified immunity.
Cited 48 timesPublishedRichey v. American Automobile Association, Inc.
380 Mass. 835 · Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · Jun 6, 1980
There may, indeed, be room for the observation that if the present facts should be held to qualify a discharged employee for relief, then a new practical definition might have to be given to employments theoretically terminable
Cited 57 timesPublishedBirbiglia v. Saint Vincent Hospital, Inc.
427 Mass. 80 · Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · Mar 16, 1998
Geltman, 406 Mass. 811, 816-817 [1990]) would not be thereby shown to have failed to qualify for immunity. … The specific intent that would be required to establish that the action of the board violated any duty of good faith and fair dealing cannot be established by aggregating the knowledge of all hospital employees acting within
Cited 24 timesPublished405 Mass. 43 · Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · May 10, 1989
The first was common law immunity, as variously expressed in our cases, and the second was a qualified immunity patterned after Federal qualified immunity under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 . Id. at 35, 38 . … Furthermore, the Supreme Court already had established the basic two-part test for determining to what discretionary functions the doctrine of qualified immunity applies.
Cited 112 timesPublished446 Mass. 525 · Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · Apr 13, 2006
was clearly established at the time of the alleged constitutional violation. … Indeed, an “unresolved” constitutional right, like the one presented in this case, cannot be “clearly established,” as required under the second prong of the qualified immunity test. See, e.g., Wilson v.
Cited 103 timesPublishedBreault v. CHAIRMAN OF BD, FIRE COMMR. OF SPRINGFIELD
401 Mass. 26 · Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · Oct 13, 1987
Creighton, 483 U.S. 635, 641 (1987) (principle of qualified immunity allows defendant to seek summary judgment on ground that, on "clearly established principles [of law]," he could have reasonably believed his acts to be … established rule of immunity.
Cited 35 timesPublishedLongval v. Commissioner of Correction
448 Mass. 412 · Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · Feb 23, 2007
immunity, the right *419 must be clearly established at the time of the alleged violation. … immunity was available to the defendants because the law, before our decision in Haverty , was not “clearly established.”
Cited 19 timesPublishedLittles v. Commissioner of Correction
444 Mass. 871 · Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · Aug 12, 2005
The doctrine of qualified immunity generally shields public officials from liability for civil damages for the performance of discretionary functions, “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … if so, the inquiry shifts to whether the right was so clearly established *879 that it would be plain to a reasonable official that his conduct was unlawful.
Cited 22 timesPublishedBreault v. Chairman of the Board of Fire Commissioners
401 Mass. 26 · Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · Oct 13, 1987
established.” … Creighton, 483 U.S. 635, 641 (1987) (principle of qualified immunity allows defendant to seek summary judgment on ground that, on “clearly established principles [of law],” he could have reasonably believed his acts to be
Cited 14 timesPublishedShedlock v. Department of Correction
442 Mass. 844 · Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · Dec 8, 2004
Gilley, 500 U.S. 226, 232 (1991) (right must be clearly established “at the time the defendant acted” to overcome defense of qualified immunity). … However, the issue whether a statutory right is “clearly established” for purposes of overcoming qualified immunity is not a matter of counting up the number of decisions that have gone each way and treating as “clearly established
Cited 30 timesPublished441 Mass. 311 · Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · Mar 26, 2004
McCabe moved for summary judgment, claiming he was entitled to qualified immunity. … The doctrine of qualified immunity shields government officials, in the course of performing discretionary tasks, from liability for civil damages “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or
Cited 26 timesPublishedAhmad v. Department of Correction
446 Mass. 479 · Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · Apr 7, 2006
In January, 2003, the defendants moved for summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds. The motion was denied without prejudice to permit sufficient discovery regarding the applicability of qualified immunity. … Consequently, the defendants are entitled to the protections of qualified immunity. Conclusion.
Cited 16 timesPublishedGeorge MacKie v. Katrin Rouse-Weir / George MacKie v. Robert Joss
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · Jan 24, 2025
Second, both legal precedent and the statutory framework of c. 123A establish that the role of qualified examiners is not only essential, but quasi judicial. … established statutory or constitutional right for the purpose of determining whether qualified immunity applied. [13] In his complaint, Mackie alleged that Joss "was hired by the [DOC] as a [qualified examiner] and assigned
Cited 0 timesPublished403 Mass. 586 · Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · Dec 14, 1988
The defendant asserts that at least qualified immunity is available to him because his conduct did not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known. … One issue is whether on clearly established principles of law, he could have reasonably believed his acts to be lawful. Breault v. Chairman of the Bd. of Fire Comm’rs of Springfield, 401 Mass. 26 , 32 (1987).
Cited 4 timesPublishedGutierrez v. Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority
437 Mass. 396 · Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · Aug 2, 2002
Qualified immunity. … Although the defendants claim qualified immunity as to all claims, the only remaining claim to which qualified immunity may , apply is Daniella’s excessive force claim.
Cited 118 timesPublishedLaChance v. Commissioner of Correction
463 Mass. 767 · Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · Nov 27, 2012
judgment, on the basis of qualified immunity. … Qualified immunity.
Cited 22 timesPublished422 Mass. 398 · Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · Apr 5, 1996
As the Supreme Court stated in *403 Anderson, supra at 639 , “[pjlaintiffs would be able to convert the rule of qualified immunity that our cases plainly establish into a rule of virtually unqualified liability simply by … Although we have no doubt that Gately violated Pasqualone’s clearly established constitutional rights, we must acknowledge that this case exposes a gap in our law.
Cited 8 timesPublished404 Mass. 634 · Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · Apr 19, 1989
Qualified immunity pursuant to § 1983. Under Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 (1982), the doctrine of qualified immunity applies only to “discretionary functions.” … The doctrine of qualified immunity has both an objective and a subjective element.
Cited 86 timesPublishedJAKLIN SUZETH GOTAY & Others v. JULIANN CREEN & Others
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · Mar 21, 2025
Qualified immunity. … Government officials are entitled to qualified immunity from § 1983 claims for damages if "their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known
Cited 0 timesPublished
Ask Donna