Case law

PIKE v. BUDD

District Court, D. Maine · Aug 23, 2023

reach the circumstances of this case was not (and is not) clearly established. … immunity.

United States v. Lochin

523 F. Supp. 2d 43 · District Court, D. Maine · Nov 13, 2007

Caselaw is clear in this District and the First Circuit that, in order to qualify for the “safety valve,” a defendant must make a full and complete proffer to the government before the sentencing hearing begins. … Establishing the deadline for truthfulness as the moment the sentencing hearing starts, however, does not necessarily mean that truthful behavior up until then immunizes later dishonesty.

TAIT v. LAKE REGION SCHOOL DISTRICT

District Court, D. Maine · Aug 7, 2024

The qualified immunity inquiry follows a two-part test: (1) whether the facts alleged by the plaintiff make out a violation of a constitutional or other federal right, and (2) whether the right was clearly established … The clearly established prong of the qualified immunity standard adds starch to Daggett’s arguments for dismissal because the question becomes not what is merely plausible under a slightly watered-down legal standard,

Dimmitt v. Ockenfels

220 F.R.D. 116 · District Court, D. Maine · Mar 9, 2004

Paragraph 31, on the other hand, presents what is clearly hearsay, trial testimony of Donald Saastamoinen, and will be stricken on that basis. … officers could have possessed under the cir- *126 eumstances, they are entitled to immunity.

OUELLETTE v. GAUDETTE

District Court, D. Maine · Feb 12, 2021

Qualified Immunity Mr. Beaupre previously argued the law was not clearly established in 1987/88 that his after-the-fact referral of reports made against Mr. … If the constitutional right and the availability of supervisory liability that underlie a plaintiff’s § 1983 claim are both clearly established, the qualified immunity analysis “reduces to the test of objective legal reasonableness

Smith v. Aroostook Cnty.

376 F. Supp. 3d 146 · District Court, D. Maine · Mar 27, 2019

A Title II plaintiff therefore must establish: (1) that [s]he is a qualified individual with a disability; (2) that [s]he was either excluded from participation in or denied the benefits of some public entity's services, … MacDonald testified, that the Plaintiff was lucky enough to avoid the worst possible outcomes of forced withdrawal in the past does not mean she is immune to risk. See Tr. 138:1-14.

LaPlante v. United Parcel Service, Inc.

810 F. Supp. 19 · District Court, D. Maine · Jan 20, 1993

The Maine Human Rights Commission is established by statute. … Instead, the Maine Civil Rights Act is clearly a statute designed to provide relief when none is otherwise available. Here, LaPlante has a specific set of remedies available to her under the Maine Human Rights Act.

Econugenics, Inc. v. Bioenergy Life Sci., Inc.

381 F. Supp. 3d 1082 · District Court, D. Maine · May 7, 2019

In addition, ecoNugenics alleged that "[c]omparative testing by qualified laboratories confirmed that ... the [MCP sold by] the Defendants is 'certainly not MCP with the ability to enter mammalian circulation and bind heavy … In this case, the parties have clearly engaged on the merits of the action.

GILBERT v. MAINE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES (DHHS)

District Court, D. Maine · Mar 31, 2025

Gilbert has not established a violation under Youngberg, the Court does not reach whether the Plaintiff has established a violation under the more demanding Lewis test. … immunity is the rule and exceptions to immunity are to be strictly construed.’”

Gonsalves v. United States

782 F. Supp. 164 · District Court, D. Maine · Jan 21, 1992

Immunity The doctrine of sovereign immunity bars constitutional claims against the United States for money damages except *168 where it consents to be sued by statute. See United States v. … The Court need not address the applicability of this exemption because section 2680(c) clearly applies to the facts of this case and resolves the issue. 8 .

SWAIN v. MAINE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS

District Court, D. Maine · Jul 31, 2023

“The qualified immunity analysis has two facets: the court must determine whether the defendant violated the plaintiff’s constitutional rights and then must determine whether the allegedly abridged right was clearly established … On the second issue (i.e., the “clearly established” issue), to avoid the application of qualified immunity, a plaintiff must: (1) “identify either controlling authority or a consensus of cases of persuasive authority

Campbell v. State of Me.

632 F. Supp. 111 · District Court, D. Maine · Oct 1, 1985

To support an action under section 1983, 7 a plaintiff must establish that conduct of a person or persons, acting under color of state law, deprived plaintiff of rights, privileges or immunities secured by the Constitution … The facts alleged in this case clearly do not come within this aspect of due process, in that there is no allegation of a defamatory report, or of publication of the facts of discharge.

Bourgoin v. Sebelius

928 F. Supp. 2d 258 · District Court, D. Maine · Feb 28, 2013

To qualify as a SLMB, an applicant must have countable income from 101% to 120% of the FPL. Id. ¶ 27 . To qualify as a QI, an applicant must have countable income from 121% to 135% of the FPL. Id. ¶28 . … Here, however, the Plaintiffs have not established “an extraordinarily high likelihood of success on the merits.” Id.

United States v. McInnis

346 F. Supp. 2d 210 · District Court, D. Maine · Nov 19, 2004

No credible reáson is established in the evidence as to why Marshal Galvin would make such a promise. … The evidence at the hearing establishes by a preponderance of that evidence that the Defendant possessed a distributable amount of marijuana.

COHEN v. CITY OF PORTLAND

District Court, D. Maine · May 4, 2022

“The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials ‘from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … To overcome a qualified immunity defense, a plaintiff suing government officials must “show (1) that [the officer violated] federal rights and (2) that these rights were so clearly established that a reasonable officer

FALMOUTH SCHOOL DEPARTMENT v. MR AND MRS DOE

District Court, D. Maine · Sep 29, 2021

Qualified Immunity as to Count IV With respect to the 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim brought against Kucinkas individually, the pending Motion also seeks dismissal based upon qualified immunity … Government officials “are entitled to qualified immunity under § 1983 unless (1) they violated a federal statutory or constitutional right, and (2) the unlawfulness of their conduct was ‘clearly established at the time.

DASTINOT v. AUBURN POLICE DEPARTMENT,et al

District Court, D. Maine · Jan 6, 2023

On the second issue (i.e., the “clearly established” issue), to avoid the application of qualified immunity, a plaintiff must: (1) “identify either controlling authority or a consensus of cases of persuasive authority sufficient … Prince George’s Cnty, 154 F.3d 173, 175 (4th Cir. 1998) (officer investigating possible break-in who directed dog to search a house and bite was not entitled to qualified immunity because “it was clearly established in

WADSWORTH v. MSAD 40/RSU 40

District Court, D. Maine · Oct 2, 2020

He lays out the “two-pronged inquiry” courts use when analyzing qualified immunity, focusing on the “clearly established” prong, id. at 9-11 (quoting Tolan v. … “[T]he second, ‘clearly established’ step of the qualified immunity analysis . . ., in turn, has two aspects.” Id. at 269.

ME. ASS'N OF INTERDEPENDENT NEIGHBORHOODS v. Petit

659 F. Supp. 1309 · District Court, D. Maine · Apr 28, 1987

Although "[a] state waiver of sovereign immunity in its own courts does not necessarily imply waiver of its eleventh amendment immunity," Della Grotta v. … The Commissioner is clearly in a better position to do so. Finally, it does seem likely that Congress wished to avoid inconsistent results such as those feared by the Commissioner.

Higgins v. TJX Companies, Inc.

331 F. Supp. 2d 3 · District Court, D. Maine · Aug 19, 2004

None of the paragraphs, however, admits, denies or qualifies A.J. … These allegations, even if proven, are not enough to establish an adverse employment action. Accordingly, A.J.