Case law

PUNSKY v. CITY OF PORTLAND

District Court, D. Maine · Nov 16, 2021

Qualified Immunity 1. … conduct was ‘clearly established at the time.’ ” District of Columbia v.

JOHNSON v. CITY OF BIDDEFORD POLICE DEPARTMENT

District Court, D. Maine · Mar 30, 2023

established prong of the qualified immunity analysis. … The Welch opinion specifically said that I could consider the clearly established prong of the qualified immunity test first. 12 F.4th at 77.

GLADU v. MANNING

District Court, D. Maine · Mar 31, 2020

Government officers are entitled to qualified immunity unless they violate a constitutional right that was “clearly established” when they engaged in the conduct at issue. Hunt v. … In its qualified immunity analysis, in addition to determining whether the facts could support a finding of a constitutional violation, a court must assess “whether the violated right was clearly established at the time

Knowlton v. Shaw

791 F. Supp. 2d 220 · District Court, D. Maine · Aug 24, 2011

Knowlton’s objection poses a puzzle: how a movant, who is attempting to establish the absence of a fact, cites the record to establish that certain evidence does not exist. … “This provision” clearly refers to paragraph fifty-one of the consent agreement. The Court also refuses to accept Mr.

PLOURDE v. CEJKA

District Court, D. Maine · Feb 1, 2022

Under the qualified immunity standards, the Defendants contend that “[t]he conduct alleged in Plaintiff’s Complaint does not violate clearly established law as of November 30, 2013.” Id. at 14. … “Qualified immunity is a doctrine that shelters government officials from civil damages liability ‘insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable

LODER v. MAINE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY

District Court, D. Maine · Mar 3, 2021

“The qualified immunity doctrine protects . . . … The qualified immunity inquiry involves a “two-part test: ‘(1) whether the facts alleged or shown by the plaintiff make out a violation of a constitutional right; and (2) if so, whether the right was clearly established

Maine Association 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.

Maine Ass'n of Independent Neighborhoods (M.A.I.N.) v. Commissioner, Maine Department of Human Services

697 F. Supp. 557 · District Court, D. Maine · Aug 30, 1988

Any expenditure of state funds would be ancillary to the grant of prospective relief, within the framework established by the Supreme Court. See Edelman v. … is not to be construed as a waiver of the state’s eleventh amendment immunity. 5 .

Benner v. St. Paul Pub. Sch.

380 F. Supp. 3d 869 · District Court, D. Maine · May 3, 2019

Gruenewald's Qualified Immunity Defense With respect to Principal Gruenewald - the "individual defendant" - Defendants argue that, because there is no "clearly established legal right to be free from investigations and write-ups … circumstances was clearly established").

Baker v. Charles

919 F. Supp. 41 · District Court, D. Maine · Feb 16, 1996

I turn therefore to explore what qualified privilege may be available under Maine common law. … The latter two options sound much like a negligence standard, whereas the "actual malice” of New York Times clearly requires at least reckless disregard or its equivalent.

In Re Grand Jury Subpoenas Duces Tecum Dated January 30, 1986

638 F. Supp. 794 · District Court, D. Maine · Jun 19, 1986

Thus, any psychotherapist-patient privilege clearly would not apply to many of the subpoenaed documents. Nevertheless, movant’s challenge is directed to all items sought. … Thus, the Sixth and Eighth Circuits, though not requiring a grant of immunity prior to the production of corporate records by an individual custodian, would limit the risk of production with the promise of de facto use immunity

Aroostook Band of Micmacs v. Ryan

403 F. Supp. 2d 114 · District Court, D. Maine · Dec 5, 2005

A tribe’s power to “maintain or establish its own form of government .... is the first element of sovereignty.” [S. Cohen,] Handbook of Federal Indian Law, [,] 247 [ (1982 ed.) ]. … Even assuming that the EEOC immediately agrees with the Band and dismisses each case, repeatedly forcing the Band to defend obviously futile Title VII complaints makes it incur financial costs that qualify as a cognizable

WOODS v. BARNIES

District Court, D. Maine · Oct 2, 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 … Because the law was not clearly established at the time of Plaintiff’s arrest, Defendant is entitled to qualified immunity on the unlawful entry claim. 3.

GRAY v. GOVERNOR JANET T MILLS

District Court, D. Maine · Nov 5, 2021

Government officials sued in their individual capacities “are immune from damages claims unless (1) they violated a federal statutory or constitutional right, and (2) the unlawfulness of their conduct was ‘clearly established … Ct. at 589 (law must be clearly established “at the time” of alleged violation) (quoting Reichle, 566 U.S. at 664).

FOX v. MAKIN

District Court, D. Maine · Feb 22, 2024

certain non-religious exemptions would violate a religious objector’s constitutional rights was not clearly established law at the time of the school district’s decision. … Lenea tries to circumvent defendants’ qualified immunity by arguing that backpay is more in the nature of equitable relief, and hence not barred by qualified immunity.

CANTRELL v. BRUNSWICK MAINE POLICE

District Court, D. Maine · Apr 29, 2024

Further, if a citizen is “exercising a clearly established First Amendment right, then it is in turn clearly established that the police could not retaliate for such activity.” Gericke, 753 F.3d at 6–7. … established at the time, so it denied the officers’ motion to dismiss on qualified immunity grounds.

Boise Cascade Corp. v. Reliance National Indemnity Co.

99 F. Supp. 2d 87 · District Court, D. Maine · Apr 28, 2000

The Boise standard terms include “an express waiver of immunity under any applicable Workers’ Compensation laws.” Exhibit No. 11 ¶ 9. … The requirement that a contractual waiver of an employer’s workers' compensation immunity could be achieved only by clear and specific language was established by the Maine Law Court in Diamond Int’l Corp. v.

LANE v. CITY OF ROCKLAND

District Court, D. Maine · Mar 24, 2025

Qualified Immunity Even if Rolerson had arrested Lane without probable cause and used excessive force in doing so, Lane has not shown “the law was clearly established such that a reasonable … Me. 2024) (concluding qualified immunity posed “an insurmountable hurdle” for the plaintiff but declining “to engage in a” lengthy “qualified immunity analysis” after finding the plaintiff had failed to demonstrate

Capozza Tile Co., Inc. v. Joy

223 F. Supp. 2d 307 · District Court, D. Maine · Sep 30, 2002

Finally, there is no necessary inconsistency in recognizing personal immunity for the union official while leaving open the preemption issue. The policies at stake in preemption and immunity are not identical. … In addition, much of that evidence, Joy SMF ¶ 5, is appropriately qualified or denied by Ca-pozza, Capozza Responsive Joy SMF ¶ 5.

Conners v. Maine Medical Center

42 F. Supp. 2d 34 · District Court, D. Maine · Mar 3, 1999

Conners is clearly ineligible to sue under Title I because, by virtue of the fact that he is currently totally disabled and unable to work even with a reasonable accommodation, he does not fit the criteria of a “qualified … Act, the court concluded that, because the plaintiff was totally disabled at all relevant times including the day of the alleged discrimination, the plaintiff could not establish that he was a “qualified handicapped person