Case law

GLADU v. MAGNUSSON

District Court, D. Maine · Dec 5, 2022

Reed, 500 U.S. 478, 496 (1991) (concluding that when providing certain advice to police, prosecutors have qualified but not absolute immunity from liability), or (3) a theory of liability based not on good faith legal advice … O’Brien’s qualified immunity. 3

Mills v. State of Me.

839 F. Supp. 3 · District Court, D. Maine · Dec 21, 1993

LAW ENFORCEMENT The Act establishes special requirements for public employees employed “in law enforcement activities.” 29 . U.S.C. § 213(b)(20). … State probation officers clearly have arrest powers. Specifically, they may make arrests in circumstances involving parole violations. 34-A M.R.S.A. § 5404(2).

Manske v. UPS Cartage Services, Inc.

870 F. Supp. 2d 185 · District Court, D. Maine · May 4, 2012

The Court has included in its recitation the substance of his qualified response. . Cartage denied this statement. DRPSAMF ¶ 10. However, the statement is clearly supported by Mr. Manske’s affidavit. … However, the statement is clearly supported by Mr. Manske’s affidavit. Manske Aff. ¶ 9. As the Court is required to view the record in the light most favorable to Mr.

Fortis Bank (Nederland) N v. v. M/V Shamrock

379 F. Supp. 2d 2 · District Court, D. Maine · Jul 29, 2005

In short, the undisputed facts clearly establish that Plaintiff Fortis Bank is the holder of a preferred mortgage on the M/V Shamrock and that Fortis is entitled to enforce its preferred mortgage lien pursuant to 46 U.S.C … Having found that ENIM’s claim for compulsory contributions does not qualify as an in custodia legis expense or otherwise qualify as a preferred maritime lien for the recovery of crew wages, the Court concludes that ENIM’

BOUCHER v. LEWISTON SCHOOL COMMITTEE

District Court, D. Maine · Mar 11, 2022

clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’ ” Pearson v. … “Qualified immunity . . . is intended to protect all but the plainly incompetent or those who knowingly violate the law.

Estey v. Commissioner, Maine Department of Human Services

814 F. Supp. 152 · District Court, D. Maine · Feb 17, 1993

This clearly limits the exclusion to energy costs as opposed to nonenergy costs. … HUD and FmHA utility reimbursements do not fall closely enough within the ambit of energy assistance to qualify for the exclusion.

Bezanso v. State, Bureau of Taxation (In Re Warmings A.G. Food Center)

50 B.R. 748 · District Court, D. Maine · Jun 26, 1985

Article 1, § 8, cl. 4 of the United States Constitution authorizes Congress to establish uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies. … A business entity conducting a liquidation sale outside of bankruptcy clearly would be subject to the state sales tax provision.

Portland Pipe Line Corp. v. City of S. Portland

288 F. Supp. 3d 321 · District Court, D. Maine · Dec 29, 2017

And in doing that, we established a city charter, and a city ordinance book ... … "Normally, such a plaintiff must establish more than that the government official's actions were simply arbitrary or erroneous; instead, the plaintiff must establish the defendant's actions constituted a 'gross abuse of power

Jewish Hospital of St. Louis v. Idexx Laboratories

951 F. Supp. 1 · District Court, D. Maine · Dec 2, 1996

These procedures do not contemplate a lapse of the patent, but rather permit correction of the error if the status was originally established in good faith. Id. … Jewish Hospital has followed those PTO procedures here, and the PTO has accepted the correcting payment by letter of July 8, 1996. 2 This clearly is not arbitrary, capricious or an abuse of discretion but, to the contrary

United States v. DeLaurentiis

638 F. Supp. 2d 76 · District Court, D. Maine · Jul 29, 2009

DeLaurentiis relies upon the immunity provision of the Mandatory Plea Agreement Supplement. It provides: “In return for Defendant’s full and truthful cooperation, the U.S. … Defendants regularly turn to their lawyers for a signal on how to answer the court’s questions, clearly frozen by the monumental consequences of the process.

Stark v. Hartt Transportation Systems, Inc.

37 F. Supp. 3d 445 · District Court, D. Maine · Aug 11, 2014

Clearly there is a point at which an employee’s concerns and comments are too generalized and informal to constitute ‘complaints’ that are ‘filed’ with an employer within the meaning of the STAA. … Whether Stark Was “Qualified” To establish that he or she is a qualified individual with a disability, a plaintiff “must demonstrate, first, that [he or] she had the necessary skill, experience, education, and other job-related

NORTHEAST PATIENTS GROUP v. MAINE DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATIVE AND FINANCIAL SERVICES

District Court, D. Maine · Aug 11, 2021

Such statutes “will stand ‘unless the burden imposed on [interstate] commerce is clearly excessive in relation to the putative local benefits.’ ” Id. (alteration in original) (quoting Pike v. … By statute, the Department “is established as the principal fiscal department of State Government.” 5 M.R.S.A. § 281.

Giroux v. Fortis Benefits Insurance

353 F. Supp. 2d 45 · District Court, D. Maine · Jan 11, 2005

The Policy contains specific circumstances under which a claimant may qualify for long term disability benefits. … Galbraith’s conclusion that “[Plaintiff] is clearly noted to have consulted Dr.

Nulankeyutmonen Nkihtaqmikon v. Impson

573 F. Supp. 2d 311 · District Court, D. Maine · Aug 14, 2008

Guzman-Rivera reviewed the points at which qualified immunity might be raised: first, in a motion to dismiss; second, at summary judgment; and third, at trial. Id. at 667 . … According to the First Circuit, a defendant “may raise the defense of qualified immunity at summary judgment, regardless of whether it was raised prior to discovery.” Id.

United States v. Carey

716 F. Supp. 2d 56 · District Court, D. Maine · Jun 8, 2010

Second, the Government argues that the Massachusetts Legislature “has clearly expressed a contrary intent” to Simmons. Id. at 12. … The Government describes how guilty-filings qualify as convictions for purposes of the Massachusetts state sentencing enhancement statute: Mass. Gen.

CHASE v. CITY OF BANGOR

District Court, D. Maine · Mar 7, 2022

The Magistrate Judge further reasoned that even if Officer Kinney had not acted in an objectively reasonable manner, he would nonetheless be entitled to qualified immunity because it was not “clearly established … established law regarding the appropriate use of force under the circumstances.”

Dube v. Boyer

594 F. Supp. 2d 91 · District Court, D. Maine · Jan 13, 2009

On these .undisputed facts the defendants assert that no constitutional violations have been identified and, further, even if there was a constitutional violation, they are entitled to qualified immunity. … However, that case has nothing to do with these facts, because these wardens clearly had reasonable grounds for the investigation they undertook.

Eastern Maine Medical Center, Inc. v. Maine State Nurses Ass'n

866 F. Supp. 607 · District Court, D. Maine · Oct 21, 1994

The grievance arose out of a dispute over which of two applicants was most qualified for a staff nurse position at EMMC. … Second, it is not dispositive that the terms “head and shoulders” and “clearly superior” do not appear in the collective bargaining agreement.

SOUCY v. SERGEANT THOMAS AVERILL

District Court, D. Maine · Sep 21, 2021

Defendants Averill, Touchette and Soper also argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity. … 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. Massi, 773 F.3d 361, 367 (1st Cir.

Donahue v. Clair Car Connection, Inc.

736 F. Supp. 2d 294 · District Court, D. Maine · Sep 9, 2010

The defendants rely on the principle that "[wjhen an interested witness has given clear answers to unambiguous questions, he cannot create a conflict and resist summary judgment with an affidavit that is clearly contradictory … As the plaintiff argues, see Strike Response at 3-4, his supplemental answer does not clearly contradict an unambiguous question. He was asked about age-based comments referred to in his complaint.