Case law

Tesson v. Commissioner, Massachusetts Department of Public Welfare

7 Mass. L. Rptr. 138 · Massachusetts Superior Court · Mar 27, 1997

Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 817-18 (1982) (establishing qualified immunity standard under 42 U.S.C. §1983 ); See also Anderson v. … Creighton, 483 U.S. 635, 641 (1987) (qualified immunity allows a defendant to move for summary judgment on the ground that, based on “clearly established” rights, he could reasonably have believed his acts to be lawful).

Longval v. O'Toole

19 Mass. L. Rptr. 308 · Massachusetts Superior Court · Jan 28, 2005

Second, they assert that the complaint fails to allege facts constituting a violation of the plaintiffs “clearly established” rights, and that they therefore are entitled to qualified immunity. A. … Gilley, 500 U.S. 226, 232 (1991) (right must be clearly established “at the time the defendant acted” to overcome defense of qualified immunity). The standard is purely an objective one. In Harlow v.

ANTHONY LEO v. CAROL MICI, Commissioner of Correction, MICHAEL RODRIGUES, Superintendent of MCI-Concord, SHEILA CREATON-KELLY, Deputy Superintendent of Re-Entry of MCI- Concord, and DANNY ORTIZ, Director of the Secure Adjustment Unit at MCI-Concord

Massachusetts Superior Court · Feb 24, 2025

to interfere) with a clearly established state right through "threats, intimidation, or coercion." … See LaChance, 463 Mass. at 778 (holding defendants entitled to qualified immunity under MCRA).

Peter Antonellis v. Department of Elder Affairs and Ann Hartsein, Individually and in Her Official Capacity as Secretary of Elder Affairs

Massachusetts Superior Court · Jan 15, 2019

Even if Plaintiff establishes these three elements, a Defendant escapes liability if he or she shows an entitlement to qualified immunity, an affirmative defense. DiMarco C Zappa v. … clearly established rights."

Gauthier v. Town of Dracut

19 Mass. L. Rptr. 579 · Massachusetts Superior Court · Jun 27, 2005

Qualified Immunity The defendants claim as an affirmative defense that Shaw and Piendak are entitled to summary judgment under the doctrine of qualified immunity. … , those rights were clearly established.

Whalen v. Commonwealth

21 Mass. L. Rptr. 193 · Massachusetts Superior Court · Jun 26, 2006

not entitled to qualified immunity. … However, in addition to proving that the state or federal right was “clearly established” (because qualified immunity applies under the MCRA), liability under the MCRA requires the additional step of showing that the violation

Nicole MacTaggart and Others / Glenn Wilder and Others / Irene Ray and Others / Anne Weiss and Others / Dianne L. Depalma and Others / Benjamin Brophy and Others / Robert Johnson and Others / Patricia Beckett and Others / Mary D. Lombardi

Massachusetts Superior Court · Feb 17, 2024

Scope of the UAGA Qualified Immunity Provision. … of the statutory qualified immunity was an affirmative defense.

Stephen v. MacKinnon

7 Mass. L. Rptr. 241 · Massachusetts Superior Court · Jul 25, 1997

Government officials performing discre *245 tionary functions are entitled to qualified immunity from suit under 42 U.S.C. §1983 if their conduct did not “violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of … a clearly established right.

Hancock v. Town of Wakefield

5 Mass. L. Rptr. 568 · Massachusetts Superior Court · Aug 15, 1996

Even if a plaintiffs rights are violated, qualified immunity is applicable if those rights were not “clearly established.” Id. at 47-48 . … A public official is not entitled to Duarte immunity except for his “discretionaiy acts,” even if the right in question was not clearly established at the time of the alleged deprivation. Breault v.

McClure v. Town of East Brookfield

9 Mass. L. Rptr. 680 · Massachusetts Superior Court · Mar 11, 1999

IV.The Qualified Immunity of the defendant Hunderup. … The United States Supreme Court has held that most public officials who exercise discretionary functions are entitled to qualified immunity from liability for damages under §1983. Harlow v.

Carey v. New England Organ Bank

17 Mass. L. Rptr. 582 · Massachusetts Superior Court · Apr 23, 2004

The Federal District Court in Lyons explains: The Uniform Anatomical Gift Act is clearly designed to balance two competing policy interests. … The Act does not compel organ donations nor does it establish a presumption that organs will be donated.

Howes v. Chesley

20 Mass. L. Rptr. 350 · Massachusetts Superior Court · Dec 21, 2005

In determining whether a party is entitled to qualified immunity, the court must consider three questions: (1) whether a. constitutional right was violated; (2) if so, whether the constitutional right in question clearly … Defendants’ qualified immunity argument is based principally on the latter two questions. 2 The defendants argue that Howes’ constitutional right to be free from a strip search in the circumstances of this case was not clearly

Siegel v. Mayer

30 Mass. L. Rptr. 312 · Massachusetts Superior Court · Sep 18, 2012

The plaintiff suggests no gauge for the application of this test, nor does she cite to any authority establishing it as the benchmark for immunity. … While in Temple the court states, “Court clerks enjoy qualified immunity from suit and are absolutely immune for their conduct when acting at a judge’s direction,” id. at 133 , nothing contained in that decision, or in other

Johnson ex rel. Estate of Johnson v. Cooke

15 Mass. L. Rptr. 717 · Massachusetts Superior Court · Jan 22, 2003

immunity. … The critical factor in determining whether the physician is an employee for the purposes of qualified immunity, is “whether a person is subject to the direction and control of a public employer.” Smith v.

Ahearn v. Vose

9 Mass. L. Rptr. 518 · Massachusetts Superior Court · Feb 15, 1999

Qualified Immunity Public officials are entitled to immunity from suit under §1983 if, in performing a discretionary act, they infringe upon a right not “clearly established.” See Matthews v. … Clearly Established Right The defendants are also not entitled to qualified immunity because, if the repulsive conditions alleged are proven true, the defendants reasonably should have known that their failure to take corrective

Ali v. DuBois

6 Mass. L. Rptr. 32 · Massachusetts Superior Court · Sep 24, 1996

I assume, under RFRA, state actors sued in their individual capacities are protected by a “qualified immunity” from suit if their actions (1) were discretionary and (2) did not violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional … However, despite the discretionary nature of their actions, defendants do not enjoy qualified immunity, because the right violated by their decision to exclude Ali was, at the time of the RFRA violations, “clearly established

LaRossa v. Dupont

6 Mass. L. Rptr. 694 · Massachusetts Superior Court · May 13, 1997

Qualified Immunity The next inquiry is whether the officers are entitled to qualified immunity from LaRossa’s civil rights claims. In Duarte v. … The doctrine of qualified immunity clearly applies to law enforcement officials, LaRossa v. Dupont, No. 94-40057-NMG (D.Mass. March 1996) at 10, citing Hunter v. Bryant, 502 U.S. 224 (1991), Anderson v.

Shedlock v. Department of Correction

15 Mass. L. Rptr. 357 · Massachusetts Superior Court · Oct 3, 2002

The Court added, “The word ‘substantial’ thus clearly precludes impairments that interfere in only a minor way with the performance of [a major life activity] from qualifying as disabilities.” Id. … Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, the correctional officers are “shielded from liability from civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or con *364 stitutional rights of

ROBIN LANG v. JOHN BARRY, M.D.

Massachusetts Superior Court · Mar 24, 2025

This statute grants members of staff committees immunity against civil suits for their activities taken in conjunction with their role on peer review committees. … Clearly, the Supreme Court’s pronouncement of judicial restraint in Nixon militates against this court’s embracing a peer review committee privilege.

Thyng v. City of Quincy

32 Mass. L. Rptr. 215 · Massachusetts Superior Court · Jun 2, 2014

qualified immunity standard. … The law of qualified immunity says that the defendants do not enjoy qualified immunity for any conduct that violated Thyng’s “clearly established” rights.