Case law

Blackstone v. Quirino

309 F. Supp. 2d 117 · District Court, D. Maine · Mar 17, 2004

With respect to the timing of the qualified immunity determination, the' Supreme Court has “stressed the importance of resolving immunity questions at the earliest possible stage in litigation,” Hunter v. … established law.”

Benjamin v. Aroostook Medical Center

937 F. Supp. 957 · District Court, D. Maine · Aug 8, 1996

Consequently TAMC does not qualify as a state actor under this test. b. … TAMC claims immunity under this legislation and because they qualify the Court grants Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment as to Count III. 1.

Pollack v. Regional School Unit 75

12 F. Supp. 3d 173 · District Court, D. Maine · Mar 31, 2014

Determining whether a right was “clearly established” entails two further inquiries. … The Defendants argue that it was not “clearly established” that Allen’s actions violated the constitution under any of these theories, so the qualified immunity standard entitles Allen to dismissal.

Tri-State Rubbish, Inc. v. Waste Management, Inc.

803 F. Supp. 451 · District Court, D. Maine · Sep 23, 1992

It has been established that the Waste Management Defendants actions are in conformity with a clearly articulated state, policy. … As described above in the text, MMWAC’s alleged acts are properly delegated and undertaken pursuant to a clearly articulated state policy, so it need not show active state supervision in order to qualify for state action

Hutchison v. Cutliffe

344 F. Supp. 2d 219 · District Court, D. Maine · Nov 10, 2004

In this case, the jury’s factual determination of reasonableness is further complicated by the court’s own analysis of qualified immunity that will involve a similar, but different test of reasonableness applied to the same … Once those facts are established, if the court determines Cut-liffe is not entitled to qualified immunity as a matter of law, then the jury’s factual assessment of the reasonableness of the degree of force becomes the ultimate

Tardiff v. Knox County

397 F. Supp. 2d 115 · District Court, D. Maine · Nov 2, 2005

Defendant Davey has raised the defense of qualified immunity. … Whether an official may prevail in a qualified immunity defense depends upon the “objective reasonableness of [his] conduct as measured by reference to clearly established law.” Harlow v.

Barrera v. Town of Brownville

139 F. Supp. 2d 136 · District Court, D. Maine · May 18, 2001

Qualified Immunity Defendants also argue in their Motion that Catlin is entitled to summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity. … Given the factual dispute, the Court cannot conclude at this point that Defendant Catlin is entitled to qualified immunity.

Miller v. Kennebec County

63 F. Supp. 2d 75 · District Court, D. Maine · Aug 30, 1999

violated clearly established law. … that the challenged conduct violated that clearly established right.

DeCotiis v. Whittemore

842 F. Supp. 2d 354 · District Court, D. Maine · Feb 2, 2012

The Court *360 dismissed Count One against Whittemore in her official capacity because it was redundant of the claim against CDS-Cumberland and against Whittemore in her individual capacity on qualified immunity grounds. … Hampshire Cnty., 307 F.3d 1, 7 (1st Cir.2002). 4 Ultimately, the First Circuit affirmed “the district court’s judgment dismissing the complaint against Whittemore, because she is entitled to qualified immunity in her individual

Shostak v. United States Postal Service

655 F. Supp. 764 · District Court, D. Maine · Feb 12, 1987

Economou, 438 U.S. 478 , 98 S.Ct. 2894 , 57 L.Ed.2d 895 (1978), federal officials are entitled to only qualified immunity unless they are in an exceptional situation in which absolute immunity is essential for the conduct … No such exceptional situation has been shown to exist in this case and, therefore, questions of fact exist as to whether or not Defendants’ actions fall within the qualified immunity delineated in Butz .

Kelley v. Mayhew

973 F. Supp. 2d 31 · District Court, D. Maine · Sep 23, 2013

The manual explains that: a public entity may not establish requirements for the program or activities of licensees that would result in discrimination against qualified individuals with disabilities. … The licensing rules promulgated by DLRS clearly constitute substantive state law.

Pouliot v. Town of Fairfield

184 F. Supp. 2d 38 · District Court, D. Maine · Feb 19, 2002

It fails against the individual Defendants because they are entitled to qualified immunity. … Qualified immunity “shields public officials performing discretionary functions from liability for civil damages ‘insofar as théir conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a

Mitchell O/B/O X.M. v. Dakota Cnty. Soc. Servs.

357 F. Supp. 3d 891 · District Court, D. Maine · Jan 28, 2019

Malice is not present if a defendant's conduct (1) objectively was legally reasonable, (2) was performed in good faith, or (3) did not violate a "clearly established" right. Gleason v. Metro. … Because the malice exception to official immunity requires an intentional commission of an act, the amended complaint's allegations of negligence do not qualify for this exception.

Scott Paper Co. v. Ceilcote Co.

103 F.R.D. 591 · District Court, D. Maine · Nov 27, 1984

resistable claim is not sufficient to immunize an investigative report developed in the ordinary course of business. f Some recent cases have suggested the need for objective facts establishing an identifiable resolve to … The purpose of these references was clearly to alert the recipient of the demands made by Plaintiff or of the likelihood that Plaintiff would initiate litigation.

Wilson v. Lyons

270 F. Supp. 2d 73 · District Court, D. Maine · Jul 9, 2003

In the alternative, they assert that they are entitled to qualified immunity under the circumstances. … The doctrine of qualified immunity provides that “government officials performing discretionary functions[ ] generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established

PLOURDE v. MASON

District Court, D. Maine · Oct 4, 2024

immunity. … Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 231 (2009) (“[Q]ualified immunity protects government officials from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of

Pouliot v. Town of Fairfield

226 F. Supp. 2d 233 · District Court, D. Maine · Sep 4, 2002

In determining whether qualified immunity applies, three factors must be determined: (1) “whether the plaintiffs allegations, if true, establish a constitutional violation”; (2) “whether the right was clearly established … This prong requires determining whether the right asserted was “clearly established” at the time of the alleged violation.

Cote v. Town of Millinocket

901 F. Supp. 2d 200 · District Court, D. Maine · Sep 28, 2012

Qualified Immunity “Qualified immunity shields state officials from civil damage liability under section 1983, insofar as their conduct does not violate ‘clearly established’ rights of which ‘a reasonable person would have … Qualified Immunity “Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, police officers are protected from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights

Scott v. Central Maine Power Co.

709 F. Supp. 1176 · District Court, D. Maine · Mar 13, 1989

Thus, the Court broadened the scope of absolute prosecutorial immunity established in Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409 , 96 S.Ct. 984 , 47 L.Ed.2d 128 (1976). … In light of the holding that none of Scott's federal claims can survive the absolute immunity defense, the court does not consider whether any of Bradford’s actions may be subject to qualified immunity. 12 .

Berthiaume v. Caron

973 F. Supp. 29 · District Court, D. Maine · Jul 10, 1997

Qualified Immunity If Defendants’ conduct is immunized at all, it results from the qualified good faith immunity available under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 . … Government officials are entitled to qualified immunity for their discretionary acts as long as their conduct does not “violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have