Case law

Sheila S. v. Commonwealth

57 Mass. App. Ct. 423 · Massachusetts Appeals Court · Feb 24, 2003

Qualified immunity. … immunity.

Gilchrist v. Commissioner of Correction

48 Mass. App. Ct. 60 · Massachusetts Appeals Court · Oct 8, 1999

She ruled that the defendants were therefore protected from providing the plaintiff money damages under the doctrine of qualified immunity. … She granted the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on the issue of due process and denied his motion on the qualified immunity issue.

Tobin v. Goggins

17 Mass. App. Ct. 996 · Massachusetts Appeals Court · Feb 6, 1984

Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232 [1974], holding that in claims under § 1983 executive officer of State and various officers of State national guard have qualified immunity for good *997 faith conduct, and Wood v. … Strickland, 420 U.S. 308 [1975], holding that in § 1983 cause of action State school board officials had common law, qualified immunity for good faith, nonmalicious action), the plaintiff would have to overcome the qualified

Morales's Case

69 Mass. App. Ct. 424 · Massachusetts Appeals Court · Jun 25, 2007

The fund, established pursuant to G. … General Laws c. 152, § 37, provides that an insurer may obtain partial compensation from the fund for payments made to qualifying employees.

Cachopa v. Town of Stoughton

72 Mass. App. Ct. 657 · Massachusetts Appeals Court · Sep 15, 2008

Qualified immunity. We reject the defendants’ argument that the qualified immunity standard for civil rights actions applies to this action in tort. See, e.g., Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 (1982); Duarte v. … A showing that the defendants acted with actual malice would thus also defeat their claim of qualified immunity. See Tobin v. Goggins, 17 Mass. App.

SUSAN GALLAGHER v. SOUTH SHORE HOSPITAL, INC., & others.

101 Mass. App. Ct. 807 · Massachusetts Appeals Court · Oct 6, 2022

was 'clearly established' at the time of [the] defendant's alleged misconduct.'" … We conclude that the law of entry into the home based on exigent circumstances was clearly established for purposes of qualified immunity and that genuine issues of material fact exist regarding the alleged violation of the

Sabree v. Conley

62 Mass. App. Ct. 901 · Massachusetts Appeals Court · Sep 27, 2004

. § 1983 (2000), the defense of qualified immunity invokes a three-part inquiry: “first, whether a constitutional violation has been alleged if plaintifffs] allegations are established as true; second, whether the law was … clearly established at the time of the alleged violation; and last, whether a reasonable official, similarly situated would understand that the challenged conduct violated a constitutional norm.”

Wheeler v. Boston Housing Authority

34 Mass. App. Ct. 36 · Massachusetts Appeals Court · Jan 25, 1993

L. c. 258, § 10(6), if the defendant’s conduct in this case qualifies as a discretionary function. Commesso v. Hingham Hous. Authy., 399 Mass. 805, 807 (1987). Ayala v. Boston Hous. … the lights at night — actions which were ruled to be clearly discretionary under the Federal Tort Claims Act); Marbley v.

Brum v. Town of Dartmouth

44 Mass. App. Ct. 318 · Massachusetts Appeals Court · Feb 25, 1998

Pla, 748 F. *328 Supp. 56, 59-61 (D.P.R. 1990) (involving a claim by a parent whose son was shot to death by another student during class); and (d) the defendants would be entitled to qualified immunity from § 1983 liability … in light of the existing state of the law as it applied to school situations, since it did not clearly establish a student’ s constitutional right to be free from attack by private parties during the school day.

Howcroft v. City of Peabody

51 Mass. App. Ct. 573 · Massachusetts Appeals Court · May 17, 2001

Qualified Immunity. The defendants argue that each one is entitled to the defense of qualified immunity from both the § 1983 and MCRA claims. … discretionary act, the constitutional or statutory right allegedly infringed was not ‘clearly established.’ ” Laubinger v.

Mulford v. Mangano

35 Mass. App. Ct. 800 · Massachusetts Appeals Court · Jan 21, 1994

“Another established principle is that the employee, in order to be entitled to compensation, need not necessarily be engaged in the actual performance of work at the moment of injury. … L. c. 152, § 1(7A), as amended through St. 1985, c. 572, § 11. 1 If Mangano’s sole reason for being at the restaurant were to watch the Celtics game with fellow employees, he would not qualify for coemployee immunity.

Lynch v. Roxbury Comprehensive Cmty. Health Ctr., Inc.

94 Mass. App. Ct. 528 · Massachusetts Appeals Court · Nov 30, 2018

use statute in Marcus provides only qualified immunity; *534 land owners are immunized from liability for injuries arising out of their ordinary negligence, but not for "wilfull, wanton or reckless conduct." … The Court long ago recognized that qualified immunity provides defendants protection "from the burdens of trial as well as a defense to liability." Johnson v.

Citation Insurance Company v. City of Chicopee

Massachusetts Appeals Court · Apr 9, 2025

County: Hampden Keywords: Governmental Immunity. Municipal Corporations, Governmental immunity, Liability for tort. Negligence, Municipality, Governmental immunity. Massachusetts Tort Claims Act. … governmental immunity that G.

Cantell v. Commissioner of Correction

87 Mass. App. Ct. 629 · Massachusetts Appeals Court · Jul 22, 2015

. § 1983 against the officials in their individual capacities, the judge ruled that the officials were not entitled to qualified immunity, because — in the judge’s view — the inmate’s due process rights clearly had been established … On the officials’ interlocutory appeal of the denial of their motion to dismiss the § 1983 claims, id. at 768 & n.3, the Supreme Judicial Court held that the officials were entitled to qualified immunity, id. at 777-778.

Berk v. Kronlund

Massachusetts Appeals Court · Jun 14, 2023

"In interpreting similar qualified immunities and privileges, Massachusetts decisions are uniform in holding that, once immunity has been invoked, the burden of overcoming the immunity rests exclusively with the plaintiff … Here, we conclude that the defendant was entitled to qualified immunity under G.

Commonwealth v. Widener

Massachusetts Appeals Court · Jun 15, 2017

Evidence, Immunized witness, Prior conviction. Witness, Immunity. Assault and Battery by Means of a Dangerous Weapon. … testimony of an immunized witness was not sufficient to convict  9 Second, even if Tobin and Long qualified as immunized witnesses under § 20E, their

Midland States Life Insurance v. Cardillo

59 Mass. App. Ct. 531 · Massachusetts Appeals Court · Oct 9, 2003

Sovereign immunity. The Lottery’s first defense to Midland’s action rested on sovereign immunity. … It has long been established that “the Commonwealth cannot be impleaded in its own courts except by its own consent, clearly manifested by act of the Legislature,” Nash v.

Kent v. Commonwealth

52 Mass. App. Ct. 28 · Massachusetts Appeals Court · Jul 6, 2001

Ct. 490, 493 (1995) (appeal taken from denial of “motion for qualified immunity” filed in civil rights case after discovery). … Malinowski, 338 Mass. 58, 60 (1958) (gross negligence may be found if the defendant persisted in a clearly negligent course of conduct over an appreciable period of time).

Purvis v. Commissioner of Correction

29 Mass. App. Ct. 190 · Massachusetts Appeals Court · Aug 28, 1990

With respect to the Department’s claim of qualified immunity, under the applicable standard in these circumstances the governmental officials would be “shielded from liability for civil damages” if, at the time of the challenged … actions, “their conduct [did] not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”

Buzulis v. Mohegan Sun Casino

69 Mass. App. Ct. 708 · Massachusetts Appeals Court · Aug 9, 2007

App. 110, 115-117 (2004) (although Indian tribe qualified for sovereign immunity, defendant it hired as independent contractor did not). Cf. Vertentes v. … The casino enjoys sovereign immunity and the suit against it was rightly dismissed. The proper forum for suit to be brought was the Gaming Disputes Court, within the applicable period established by the Mohegan Tribe.