Case law

Webb v. Haas

728 A.2d 1261 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · May 13, 1999

Qualified immunity shields government officials from civil liability under section 1983 “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would … Whether a right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation is a question of law.

Jenness v. Nickerson

637 A.2d 1152 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Feb 15, 1994

The Officers here violated no clearly-established rights. … The Officers violated no “clearly established” rights.

Allstate Insurance v. Elwell

513 A.2d 269 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Jul 23, 1986

A contract is against public policy if it “clearly appears to be in violation of some well established rule of law, or that its tendency will be harmful to the interests of society.” Lesieur v. … MacDonald, 412 A.2d 71 (Me.1980), and parent-child immunity, Black v.

Dr. Doe v. Board of Dental Practice

2026 ME 27 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Mar 17, 2026

in their personal capacities are barred by qualified immunity. … The individual defendants are alternatively entitled to qualified immunity for the § 1983 claim because there was no clearly established right. [¶23] “Qualified immunity is meant to protect government officials

Lyons v. City of Lewiston

666 A.2d 95 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Oct 19, 1995

“The two-part test for denial of qualified immunity is (1) whether the plaintiffs constitutional rights were violated, and (2) whether those rights were so clearly established that reasonable defendants would have known that … As we have recently stated, The application of the qualified immunity doctrine turns on the “objective legal reasonableness” of the official’s action viewed in fight of the “clearly established” legal rules at the time the

Creamer v. Sceviour

652 A.2d 110 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Jan 12, 1995

Qualified Immunity A plaintiff may maintain a section 1983 5 claim against governmental employees only if they are not entitled to qualified immunity. … The two-part test for denial of qualified immunity is (1) whether the plaintiffs constitutional rights were violated, and (2) whether those rights were so clearly established that the defendants would have known that their

Linda J. Clifford v. MaineGeneral Medical Center

91 A.3d 567 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Apr 22, 2014

of qualified immunity is (1) whether the plaintiff’s constitutional rights were violated, and (2) whether those rights were so clearly established that reasonable defendants would have known that their specific actions … Lyons, 666 A.2d at 99; see Webb, 1999 ME 74, ¶ 8, 728 A.2d 1261 (stating that qualified immunity shields government officials from civil liability under section 1983 if their conduct does not violate clearly established

Ryan v. City of Augusta

622 A.2d 74 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Mar 1, 1993

Under the qualified immunity doctrine, government officials performing discretion *76 ary functions are immune from suit in actions brought pursuant to § 1983 “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established … Because their actions violated Ryan’s clearly established rights, Logan and Todd are not entitled to qualified immunity. III.

Andrews v. Department of Environmental Protection

1998 Me. 198 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Aug 3, 1998

Qualified immunity shields “ ‘government officials performing discretionary functions ... from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of … Several federal circuit courts have observed that a public employee’s free speech right, as guaranteed by the Pickering decision and its progeny, will rarely be “clearly established” for purposes of a qualified immunity analysis

Pratt v. Ottum

2000 Me. 203 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Nov 27, 2000

Because their actions violated plaintiffs clearly established rights, defendants are not entitled to a qualified immunity as a matter of law.” II. … Because their actions violated [Pratt’s] clearly established rights, defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity as a matter of law.”

Norton v. Hall

834 A.2d 928 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Sep 30, 2003

of qualified immunity. … Even if the Nortons had produced facts sufficient to support a constitutional claim, Hall would be entitled to qualified immunity because, given the information she possessed, her conduct “does not violate clearly established

Parsons v. Wright

649 A.2d 1108 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Nov 10, 1994

Whether the Wrights are entitled to a qualified immunity is a question of law for the court. … The application of the qualified immunity doctrine turns on the “objective legal reasonableness” of the official’s action viewed in light of the “clearly established” legal rules at the time the action was taken.

Gray v. State

624 A.2d 479 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · May 11, 1993

On a motion by Levesque, the court dismissed the civil rights claim finding that Levesque did not violate any clearly established statutory or constitutional rights and therefore was en *482 titled to qualified immunity. … Malice or improper motive, alone, is not sufficient to defeat qualified immunity. Myers, 810 F.2d at 1457 . An official’s entitlement to qualified immunity is a legal, not a factual issue. Snell v.

Jeremiah Hogan v. Lincoln Medical Partners

2025 ME 22 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Mar 4, 2025

Even construed strictly because it is in derogation of the common law, the immunity statute is clearly broad in scope. See Jamison v. … As to Hogan’s assertion that the immunity provision violates the child’s constitutional right of bodily integrity, “[i]n the context of COVID-19, courts across the country have concluded that Jacobson established that there

Webb v. Haas

665 A.2d 1005 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Oct 10, 1995

Haas contends that he is protected from the Webbs’ action by the doctrine of qualified immunity pursuant to 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 8 because he has not violated a clearly established right of the Webbs’. … Pursuant to the doctrine of qualified immunity, “ ‘government officials performing discretionary functions[] generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established

Struck v. Hackett

668 A.2d 411 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Nov 27, 1995

“Under the qualified immunity doctrine, government officials performing discretionary functions are immune from suit in actions brought pursuant to § 1983 ‘insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established constitutional … The application of the qualified immunity doctrine turns on the “objective legal reasonableness of the official’s action viewed in light of the ‘clearly established’ ” legal rules at the time the action was taken.

Munjoy Sporting & Athletic Club v. Dow

2000 Me. 141 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Jul 21, 2000

“A public official claiming qualified immunity ... must establish either that he or she did not -violate the plaintiffs rights or that given the state of the law a reasonable official would not have understood that he [or … A right is clearly established if “the contours of the right [are] sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates that- right.

Lord v. Murphy

561 A.2d 1013 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Jul 12, 1989

The defendants by their answer asserted, inter alia, the defense of absolute immunity or, in the alternative, qualified immunity. … In Mitchell , the Supreme Court held that qualified immunity, similar to absolute immunity, is an entitlement of “an immunity from suit rather than a mere defense to liability; and like an absolute immunity, it is effectively

Searle v. Town of Bucksport

3 A.3d 390 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Aug 31, 2010

The immunity exceptions are strictly construed so as to adhere to immunity as the general rule. Sanford v. … The remaining issue is whether they qualify as an appurtenance to a public building. 1.

Grossman v. Richards

722 A.2d 371 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Jan 13, 1999

P. 56(b) on the ground that no genuine issue of material fact existed and Grossman failed to establish the elements of his claims. … Madura, 474 A.2d 166 (Me.1984), can be read to suggest that only a qualified immunity was intended, it is incorrect.