Case law

Briand v. Lavigne

223 F. Supp. 2d 241 · District Court, D. Maine · Aug 14, 2002

immunity. … This recommended decision also renders moot Briand’s cross-motion for partial summary judgment (Docket No. 7) on the issue of qualified immunity.

SMALL v. SMITH

District Court, D. Maine · Oct 10, 2025

immunity from liability unless (1) they violated a federal right, and (2) the unlawfulness of their conduct was “clearly established.” … at 66, I start with the “clearly established” prong of the qualified immunity analysis. The “clearly established” prong includes two related aspects.

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.

GLADU v. MAGNUSSON

District Court, D. Maine · Aug 26, 2025

Stanley argues qualified immunity shields him from liability. … Qualified immunity protects government officials from liability when “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”

LUCAS

District Court, D. Maine · Jun 1, 2026

The qualified immunity doctrine shields law enforcement officers “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … In effect, unless the law was clearly established at the time, the qualified immunity doctrine holds that it is not fair to infer or presume that the defendants would have understood that their actions or inactions resulted

State of Me. v. Department of Navy

702 F. Supp. 322 · District Court, D. Maine · Nov 23, 1988

Clearly, if Congress may effectively waive sovereign immunity to each individual requirement of state law, which it indisputably can, then it can, with equal effectiveness, waive sovereign immunity to a generic or broad category … immunity.

Charette v. St. John Valley Soil & Water Conservation Dist.

332 F. Supp. 3d 316 · District Court, D. Maine · Aug 17, 2018

Therefore, to determine whether a defendant is entitled to qualified immunity, a court must consider whether the constitutional right the defendant allegedly violated was "clearly established" at the time of the violation … immunity because they did not violate a "clearly established" right.

PLOURDE v. LEWIS

District Court, D. Maine · Mar 10, 2025

qualified immunity. … The next step in a qualified immunity analysis is to consider whether the right was clearly established when the alleged violation occurred. Id.

Black v. Sullivan

561 F. Supp. 1050 · District Court, D. Maine · Apr 13, 1983

Moreover, there are some cases in which the result would clearly change, such as the case of the aforementioned hypothetical law student who prior to his third year satisfactorily establishes that he was indeed a bona fide … qualified immunity accorded to government officials acting in good faith with the reasonable belief that their actions are constitutional.

Nillson-Borrill v. Burnheimer

505 F. Supp. 2d 180 · District Court, D. Maine · Aug 31, 2007

Maine statutes clearly demonstrate that MCC is a state facility. Title 34-A of the Maine Revised Statutes deals with corrections. … Nickerson, 637 A.2d 1152, 1159 (Me.1994) (“qualified immunity analysis under section 1983 also applies to the MCRA”); Hegarty v. Somerset County, 848 F.Supp. 257 (D.Me.1994) (same); McLain v.

NASS v. MAINE BOARD OF LICENSURE IN MEDICINE

District Court, D. Maine · Jul 24, 2024

liability unless their conduct violated ‘clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’” … Courts “may address either prong of the qualified immunity analysis first,” and “[a]n official may be entitled to qualified immunity ‘based on either prong.’” Ablordeppey v.

Zuckerman Ex Rel. Zuckerman v. Coastal Camps, Inc.

716 F. Supp. 2d 23 · District Court, D. Maine · Jun 4, 2010

Anderson qualified her opinion by using terms such as “may” or “it is possible”). … In those examples, the sponsor would likely be immune under the Act.

Wilcox v. Petit

117 F.R.D. 314 · District Court, D. Maine · Oct 9, 1987

Thus, the Plaintiffs qualify for class certification. See Ortiz v. … Regardless of the merits of Defendants’ argument, the Court cannot and will not reach the question of sovereign immunity in this motion for class certification.

United States v. Petraia Maritime Ltd.

489 F. Supp. 2d 90 · District Court, D. Maine · May 22, 2007

When these statements were made, the declarants had either cooperation and immunity agreements or use immunity agreements with the Government. … The statements are, therefore, clearly hearsay.

Currier v. Thompson

369 F. Supp. 2d 65 · District Court, D. Maine · May 11, 2005

Subparagraph 7 was clearly directed to annual and routine medical matters, such as physicals, periodic hearing aid checkups, and immunizations. … The Secretary urges this Court to remand the case to the Appeals Council to determine whether the VM qualifies under either definition. Ms.

Fowler v. Boise Cascade Corp.

739 F. Supp. 671 · District Court, D. Maine · Jun 12, 1990

of the party to be indemnified that liability for such damages will be fastened on the indemnitor, and words of general import will not be read as expressing such an intent and establishing by inference such liability. … Maine’s strong interest in maintaining the balance struck by its Workers’ Compensation Act persuades this Court that an employer’s immunity should be respected unless the employer explicitly waives that immunity.

State of Maine v. United States

45 F. Supp. 35 · District Court, D. Maine · May 12, 1942

Such a grant of jurisdiction must be clearly shown, and doubt as to the construction of the provisions of the statute granting the same will be resolved in favor of the government.” … “The bill, in principle, is simply a substitute for the practice, long established, of passing special bills, under which private owners have been allowed to submit to our admiralty courts admiralty claims of this character

Benson v. University of Maine System

857 F. Supp. 2d 171 · District Court, D. Maine · Apr 24, 2012

They claim that when they applied for these positions, the University used a discriminatory hiring process and passed over each of the Plaintiffs, hiring younger, less qualified, less experienced applicants. … Nonetheless, the Advisory Committee clearly meant their filings to qualify as mistakes under the Rule. Id. at 2494-95 (internal citations omitted).

Carey & Assocs., P.A. v. Sheriffs & Cntys. of Cumberland

320 F. Supp. 3d 226 · District Court, D. Maine · Mar 5, 2018

State Action Immunity The Defendants have asserted state action immunity as a basis to dismiss the Plaintiffs' antitrust claims. … "[I]mmunity will only attach to the activities of local governmental entities if they are undertaken pursuant to a 'clearly articulated and affirmatively expressed' state policy to displace competition."

Bayside Enterprises, Inc. v. Hanson

675 F. Supp. 1375 · District Court, D. Maine · Dec 17, 1987

The compulsory process of bargaining, mediation and arbitration is set in motion by MABB’s establishment of a “contract date.” … The commissioner, in consultation with the board, shall establish a panel of arbitrators, who shall be qualified by education, training or experience to carry out the responsibilities of an arbitrator under this article.