Case law

Patrick Laselva v. City of Boston

Massachusetts Superior Court · Sep 20, 2021

To establish tort immunity under Section 17C, therefore, the Defendant must demonstrate each of four specific things: -8- (1) That the City owns the land on which the Plaintiff’s injury occurred; (2) That the Plaintiff was … The City Engaged in No Conduct That Was Wilful, Wanton or Reckless The summary judgment record demonstrating that the City qualifies for the tort immunity conferred by the Recreational Use Statute, the Plaintiff’s claims

McLarnon v. Massachusetts General Hospital

14 Mass. L. Rptr. 203 · Massachusetts Superior Court · Oct 9, 2001

Similarly, court ordered payments to experts do not establish relationships that interfere with grants of judicial immunity. LaLonde at 212 , n.9. … Therefore, McLarnon can not be considered as one clearly and definitely intended to benefit from the relationship between the defendants and the court. V.

DeLong v. Dubois

7 Mass. L. Rptr. 47 · Massachusetts Superior Court · Jun 6, 1997

III.The DOC is entitled to qualified immunity “Qualified immunity shields public officials performing discretionary functions from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established … The DOC did not violate a clearly established constitutional right because DeLong did not have an enforceable liberty interest. The DOC is entitled to qualified immunity.

Stetson v. Town of Ashland

24 Mass. L. Rptr. 427 · Massachusetts Superior Court · Sep 8, 2008

Stetson did not request punitive damages for the alleged civil rights violation, and Melnick did not assert qualified immunity as a defense in his answer. 3 Cf. Powell, 391 Mass. at 23. … Additionally, Melnick later asserted qualified immunity as grounds for summary j udgment.

Tesson v. Commissioner, Massachusetts Department of Public Welfare

6 Mass. L. Rptr. 623 · Massachusetts Superior Court · Apr 25, 1997

The Court (Fremont-Smith, J.) denied Tesson’s motion on the ground that a government official, such as the Commissioner, enj oys a qualified immunity from suit for civil damages when he or she is performing a discretionary … function and when, “at the time of the challenged action, the statutory or constitutional right allegedly violated was not ‘clearly established.’ ” Breault v.

Doe ex rel. Doe v. Yunits

15 Mass. L. Rptr. 278 · Massachusetts Superior Court · Feb 26, 2001

Massachusetts law does recognize qualified immunity patterned after the federal qualified immunity under 42 U.S.C. §1983 , but that immunity applies only to discretionary functions, not ministerial acts. Duarte v. … immunity.

EIC Development, LLC v. Mystic Valley Development Commission

16 Mass. L. Rptr. 138 · Massachusetts Superior Court · Mar 26, 2003

If a reasonable person would not have known that his conduct violated a clearly established right, it does not matter whether the defendant acted with a benign or malicious intent; the defendant still enjoys qualified immunity … In these civil rights cases, the court’s resolution of the qualified immunity issue rests on whether the public official’s conduct plainly violated a clearly established constitutional or statutory right of the plaintiff.

LaPage v. Dennehy

27 Mass. L. Rptr. 357 · Massachusetts Superior Court · Sep 9, 2010

Claims against the individual defendants in their personal capacities/Qualified immunity. … The individual defendants in their individual capacities enjoy qualified immunity for their conduct such that only violations of “clearly established” rights are actionable. O’Malley, 414 Mass. at 142.

Fish v. Lyons

9 Mass. L. Rptr. 147 · Massachusetts Superior Court · Sep 3, 1998

The present case involves an area of law that has not been defined or clearly established. … established rights of the plaintiffs, the Court rules that the individual defendants are entitled to qualified immunity.

Massachusetts Department of Correction v. Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination and Pamela Scanlan

Massachusetts Superior Court · Jan 15, 2019

A moving party bears a heavy burden of establishing that an agency's decision is invalid. See Merisme v. Board of Appeals on Motor Vehicle Policies and Bonds, 27 Mass. App. Ct. 470, 474 (1989); Mass. … Applying these requirements, the motion judge correctly concluded that the MCAD decision should be given preclusive effect. -4- [T]he MCAD qualifies as a "court of competent jurisdiction" because it is "a tribunal recognized

Guzzi v. Dennehy

25 Mass. L. Rptr. 207 · Massachusetts Superior Court · Jan 14, 2009

The defendants here move for summary judgment on the federal claims, arguing that they did not violate any clearly established First Amendment rights of the plaintiffs and are in any event, immunized from suit by qualified … immunity.

Reyad v. Caritas Norwood Hospital, Inc.

29 Mass. L. Rptr. 79 · Massachusetts Superior Court · Aug 18, 2011

Next they assert that the affirmative defenses of qualified immunity and waiver require dismissal of all the counts in the complaint. … Does the defense of immunity require dismissal of all the plaintiffs claims? Defendants next assert the affirmative defense of qualified immunity.

Peters v. Ling

2 Mass. L. Rptr. 561 · Massachusetts Superior Court · Sep 1, 1994

Section 205(b) provides that “information and records which are necessary to comply with risk management and qualify assurance programs established by the board of registration in medicine and which are necessary to the work … process. 243 CMR 3 .01, defining the scope and purpose of the regulatory scheme, states that “to assure free self-examination by physicians and institutions, the legislature provided extensive safeguards of confidentiality, immunity

Priestly v. Doucette

1 Mass. L. Rptr. 415 · Massachusetts Superior Court · Dec 21, 1993

Qualified immunity applies to civil rights violations as well as invasion of privacy claims. Duarte, supra at 44 . … If the law was clearly established and the supervisor failed to prove extraordinary circumstances for justifying a lack of knowledge of the law, the immunity defense fails. Dobos v. Driscoll, 404 Mass. 634, 646 (1989).

Canterbury Automotive, Inc. v. City of Worcester

32 Mass. L. Rptr. 5 · Massachusetts Superior Court · Jan 15, 2014

As to the City’s decisions not to make certain improvements to its sewer and drainage systems, these are clearly the type of core discretionary functions that are immunized from liability under G.L.c. 258, § 10(b). … The statute was designed to eliminate governmental immunity, subject to certain clearly delineated exceptions. See Harry Stoller & Co. v. City of Lowell, 412 Mass. 139, 141 (1992).

Fiske v. Town of North Attleboro

22 Mass. L. Rptr. 242 · Massachusetts Superior Court · Feb 14, 2007

The First Circuit has held that there can be no cognizable claim for abuse of process under §1983, because the Supreme Court had effectively eliminated this type of claim with its decisions upholding qualified immunity. … The court does not consider whether the remaining individuals are entitled to qualified immunity on these common-law torts, since they did not raise that doctrine in their papers.

Pedro v. Goldfarb

28 Mass. L. Rptr. 559 · Massachusetts Superior Court · Sep 13, 2011

She is entitled to immunity under the Tort Claims Act. … Once the moving party establishes the absence of a triable issue, the party opposing the motion must respond with evidence of specific facts establishing the existence of a genuine dispute. Pederson, 404 Mass. at 17 .

Doe, SORB No. 137631 v. Holmes

30 Mass. L. Rptr. 341 · Massachusetts Superior Court · Jun 4, 2012

A public official is immune from personal monetary liability for official conduct unless the particular conduct violates a right that is clearly established in federal law at the time of the conduct. Davis v. … The claim for damages against Holmes under §1983 is thus barred by qualified immunity, and must be dismissed.

Office One, Inc. v. Lopez

7 Mass. L. Rptr. 585 · Massachusetts Superior Court · Sep 30, 1997

or an immunity from liability to the person harmed. … Thus, the fact that the Trustees are relieved from liability for their otherwise tortious conduct because their alleged breach of fiduciary duty implicates the right of petition, qualifying them for immunity under the anti-SLAPP

Jergensen v. Massachusetts Historical Commission

33 Mass. L. Rptr. 615 · Massachusetts Superior Court · Nov 21, 2016

. §207 are barred, as a matter of law, by the principle of sovereign immunity. … Maine, 527 U.S. 706, 754 (1999) (“we hold that the States retain immunity from private suit in their own courts, an immunity beyond the congressional power to abrogate by Article I legislation”).