Case law

Buchanan v. Maine

377 F. Supp. 2d 276 · District Court, D. Maine · Jul 22, 2005

Federal Abrogation of State Immunity: General Principles The State contends that even if the Plaintiffs Amended Complaint stated a viable Title II claim, it is entitled to qualified immunity under Elder v. … Does the consent decree provide a sufficient basis to establish a waiver of immunity? The issue was not briefed and there is no further information about the terms of the consent decree.

Russell v. Knox County

826 F. Supp. 20 · District Court, D. Maine · Jun 21, 1993

This is a section 1983 civil rights action, and in order to establish a claim, it must be established that there was deliberate indifference to a clearly established constitutional right. The case of Gordon v. … The United States Supreme Court has said that the purpose of a qualified immunity doctrine which is implemented by the deliberate indifference standard is to “protect all but the plainly incompetent or those who knowingly

Springer v. Seaman

658 F. Supp. 1502 · District Court, D. Maine · Apr 30, 1987

Moreover, Plaintiffs counsel has not offered any credible excuse for his failure to file any objection to the federal defendants’ motion within the ten-day period established by the Rule. 3 The motion clearly indicated on … Nor has Seaman cited any authority to establish that prior to the passage of the MTCA a municipal employee enjoyed common law immunity for intentional libels or slanders. Cf.

GLADU

District Court, D. Maine · Apr 15, 2026

Plaintiff’s claim is not clearly established, and Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity as to Count V. E. … The Court proceeds to the second prong of the qualified immunity analysis: whether the right was clearly established at the time of the retaliatory action. See City of Escondido, Cal. v.

Goodman v. President and Trustees of Bowdoin Coll.

135 F. Supp. 2d 40 · District Court, D. Maine · Mar 16, 2001

This limitation is particularly significant in light of the Leatherman and Crawford-El Courts’ specific emphasis on the qualified immunity defense. … The Leatherman Court left open the narrow question of whether the Court’s qualified immunity jurisprudence “would require a heightened pleading in cases involving individual government officials.”

Roy v. Runyon

954 F. Supp. 368 · District Court, D. Maine · Jan 30, 1997

A defendant is entitled to dismissal for failure to state a claim “only if it clearly appears, according to the facts alleged, that the plaintiff cannot recover on any viable theory.” Correa-Martinez v. … Accordingly, it is not necessary to address the exclusivity and immunity issues raised in this regard by the defendant.

Curran v. Portland Superintending School Committee

435 F. Supp. 1063 · District Court, D. Maine · Jul 18, 1977

Plaintiff’s claim of employment discrimination under all three counts of the complaint clearly meets the second requirement of Data Processing. See also Parts II and III, infra. … immunity to which they are entitled under Wood v.

Donovan v. Fowle

762 F. Supp. 2d 186 · District Court, D. Maine · Jan 20, 2011

The Civil Rights Act affords subject matter jurisdiction over Donovan’s claims and the Rooker-Feldman doctrine does not clearly bar exercise of that jurisdiction. … Maine, 787 F.2d 776, 777 (1st Cir.1986) (“Imbler rejected a suggestion that the prosecutor’s immunity be reduced to a qualified one when he is alleged to have withheld exculpatory information.”).

ASHBY

District Court, D. Maine · May 4, 2026

The qualified immunity inquiry has two components: “whether the facts alleged . . . make out a violation of a constitutional right,” and “if so, whether the right was ‘clearly established’” at the time of the alleged … As explained above, whether Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity depends upon “whether the right was ‘clearly established’” at the time of the alleged violation.

Hardy v. Emery

241 F. Supp. 2d 38 · District Court, D. Maine · Jan 23, 2003

Viability of Emery’s Assertion of Qualified Immunity Emery makes a rather indecisive argument that he is entitled to qualified immunity at this phase of the litigation. (Mot. Summ. J. at 8, 11-12; see also Answer at 4.) … “The second question,” with respect to qualified immunity, “is whether the right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation.” Id.

Lincoln Pulp & Paper Co., Inc. v. Dravo Corp.

436 F. Supp. 262 · District Court, D. Maine · Aug 9, 1977

Lyon, qualified as an expert in the engineering and construction industry. … it”; (3) such contracts must be construed with every intendment against the party who seeks the immunity from liability; (4) the burden to establish immunity from liability is upon the party who asserts such immunity. 224

Barstow v. Kennebec County Jail

115 F. Supp. 2d 3 · District Court, D. Maine · Aug 22, 2000

immunity). … immunity.

Gross v. Griffin

800 F. Supp. 2d 293 · District Court, D. Maine · Jul 6, 2011

If that third line of defense falters, the Estate raises qualified immunity as a defense, observing that the First Amended Complaint does not connect Mr. … established for purposes of the qualified immunity defense.

Moody v. City of Lewiston

213 F. Supp. 2d 1 · District Court, D. Maine · Jul 31, 2002

Defendant Landry would also be entitled to qualified immunity if a Fourth Amendment violation on his part was even suggested by the uncontroverted facts in the case. … In order to defeat that immunity, Plaintiff is required to demonstrate that *4 his “clearly established” rights have been violated and that “a reasonable officer situated in the same circumstances should have understood that

Krennerich v. Inhabitants of the Town of Bristol

943 F. Supp. 1345 · District Court, D. Maine · Oct 24, 1996

To sustain a claim under the ADA, a plaintiff must establish: (1) [T]hat he is a disabled person within the meaning of the Act; (2) that [he is qualified, that is,] with or without reasonable accommodation he is able to perform … Qualified Employee Defendants contend that Mr.

United States v. Maine Lobstermen's Association

160 F. Supp. 115 · District Court, D. Maine · Dec 20, 1957

This representation by the defendant is not true, and the claimed immunity is clearly without any legal basis. … immunity must be, and hereby is, denied.

Gomes v. University of Maine System

365 F. Supp. 2d 6 · District Court, D. Maine · Apr 8, 2005

Qualified Immunity Under well established law, individual defendants are entitled to qualified immunity for official action unless: (1) their conduct violated a constitutional right; and, (2) the law to this effect was *38 … “clearly established” under then-existing law so that a reasonable official would have known that his behavior was unlawful.

Theriault v. UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN MAINE

353 F. Supp. 2d 1 · District Court, D. Maine · Sep 30, 2004

Nye adopts the UMS defendants’ arguments on relevant issues and contends that he is entitled to qualified immunity on these claims. Defendants [sic] Ken Nye’s Motion for Summary Judgment, etc. … There are two prongs to qualified immunity analysis. First, the court must determine, as a matter of law, whether the constitutional right in question was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation.

PIKE v. BUDD

District Court, D. Maine · Jun 14, 2023

The second, “clearly established” step of the qualified immunity analysis has, in turn, two aspects. … A government official who is not contravening clearly established law is entitled to qualified immunity. Taylor v. Barkes, 575 U.S. 822, 825 (2015).

United States v. Gianakakis

671 F. Supp. 64 · District Court, D. Maine · Jul 15, 1987

The testimony established several other points with regard to defendant’s “cooperation” following the Portland meeting. … The evidence established that sometime in 1985 the defendant and Sears travelled to Stern’s office in Bangor for a meeting.