Case law

Tesson v. Commissioner, Massachusetts Department of Public Welfare

7 Mass. L. Rptr. 138 · Massachusetts Superior Court · Mar 27, 1997

Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 817-18 (1982) (establishing qualified immunity standard under 42 U.S.C. §1983 ); See also Anderson v. … Creighton, 483 U.S. 635, 641 (1987) (qualified immunity allows a defendant to move for summary judgment on the ground that, based on “clearly established” rights, he could reasonably have believed his acts to be lawful).

Caron v. Silvia

32 Mass. App. Ct. 271 · Massachusetts Appeals Court · Mar 23, 1992

entitled to a defense of qualified immunity from liability, and judgment was entered in their favor. *273 The judge correctly set forth the scope of immunity protecting the defendants, sued as individuals, for discretionary … Consistent with the reasons underlying the qualified immunity defense, it was important that the immunity issue be resolved at the earliest possible stage of litigation, preferably before any discovery, on a motion to dismiss

Williams v. O'Brien

78 Mass. App. Ct. 169 · Massachusetts Appeals Court · Oct 25, 2010

It is well established that the MCRA incorporates the standard of immunity for public officials developed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 , and accordingly “public officials are not liable under the [MCRA] for their discretionary … acts, unless they have violated a right under Federal or State constitutional or statutory law that was ‘clearly established’ at the time.”

Longval v. O'Toole

19 Mass. L. Rptr. 308 · Massachusetts Superior Court · Jan 28, 2005

Second, they assert that the complaint fails to allege facts constituting a violation of the plaintiffs “clearly established” rights, and that they therefore are entitled to qualified immunity. A. … Gilley, 500 U.S. 226, 232 (1991) (right must be clearly established “at the time the defendant acted” to overcome defense of qualified immunity). The standard is purely an objective one. In Harlow v.

Matthews v. Rakiey

38 Mass. App. Ct. 490 · Massachusetts Appeals Court · May 5, 1995

(b) Clearly established right. We must next inquire whether the defendant’s conduct nonetheless violated a clearly established right of the plaintiff. … Since the defendant’s actions were discretionary and they did not violate any clearly established rights of the plaintiff, qualified immunity was warranted.

ANTONIO LACY v. JOHN COUGHLIN & another.

100 Mass. App. Ct. 321 · Massachusetts Appeals Court · Oct 6, 2021

"Thus, if a court decides to grant qualified immunity because there is no violation of clearly established law, it may never answer whether there was a constitutional violation." … While I agree with Justice Massing that the right was clearly established here, the current case is yet another example of the collateral damage done by a qualified immunity doctrine which aggressively terminates cases at

Krupien v. Ritcey

112 N.E.3d 302 · Massachusetts Appeals Court · Sep 26, 2018

"[T]he relevant inquiry on summary judgment as to the defense of qualified immunity is whether a reasonable official could have believed his actions were lawful, in light of clearly established law and the information possessed … established religious rights. 13 Therefore, the defendants were not entitled to qualified immunity.

Clancy v. McCabe

58 Mass. App. Ct. 498 · Massachusetts Appeals Court · Jul 8, 2003

The qualified immunity test is a two-step inquiry. See Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. at 201-202. 1. Whether constitutional violation clearly established. … “[T]he ‘clearly established [right]’ prong of the qualified immunity inquiry is satisfied when (1) the subordinate’s actions violated a clearly established constitutional right, and (2) it was clearly established that a supervisor

Cristo v. Evangelidis

90 Mass. App. Ct. 585 · Massachusetts Appeals Court · Oct 28, 2016

[Q]ualified immunity shields government officials performing discretionary functions from civil liability for money damages when their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory authority or constitutional … the defendant's position would understand that his conduct violated those clearly established rights.

Baker v. Gray

57 Mass. App. Ct. 618 · Massachusetts Appeals Court · Mar 24, 2003

The doctrine of qualified immunity may shield State officials from liability for civil damages under this statute, so long as they are performing discretionary functions and do not violate “clearly established statutory or … Gray accordingly was entitled to qualified immunity from the plaintiffs’ additional claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging violation of their clearly established rights under the First Amendment and equal protection clause

Doe, SORB No. 474362 v. Sex Offender Registry Board

94 Mass. App. Ct. 52 · Massachusetts Appeals Court · Sep 19, 2018

from a damages claim because the constitutional rights the defendants allegedly violated were not "clearly established." … This is because as employees of a State executive agency, Hayden and Myers are immune from suit under § 1983 unless their actions violated clearly established constitutional rights.

Laubinger v. Department of Revenue

41 Mass. App. Ct. 598 · Massachusetts Appeals Court · Nov 14, 1996

Whether an asserted right was clearly established at a particular time so that a public official who allegedly violated the right has no qualified immunity “presents a question of law” which “must be resolved de novo on appeal … Accordingly, we hold Fay is entitled to qualified immunity.

ANTHONY LEO v. CAROL MICI, Commissioner of Correction, MICHAEL RODRIGUES, Superintendent of MCI-Concord, SHEILA CREATON-KELLY, Deputy Superintendent of Re-Entry of MCI- Concord, and DANNY ORTIZ, Director of the Secure Adjustment Unit at MCI-Concord

Massachusetts Superior Court · Feb 24, 2025

to interfere) with a clearly established state right through "threats, intimidation, or coercion." … See LaChance, 463 Mass. at 778 (holding defendants entitled to qualified immunity under MCRA).

Ahearn v. Vose

64 Mass. App. Ct. 403 · Massachusetts Appeals Court · Sep 2, 2005

Qualified immunity. … Having considered whether there was an Eighth Amendment violation, we next consider, for purposes of qualified immunity analysis, whether the constitutional right violated was clearly established at the time.

Martino v. Hogan

37 Mass. App. Ct. 710 · Massachusetts Appeals Court · Dec 13, 1994

The defendants answered with denials and defenses including the defense of “qualified immunity.” … Finally, even were it assumed that the constitutional rule was “clearly established” and violated, so that qualified immunity did not attach, the defendants could be held individually liable for damages for the infractions

Hutton v. Superintendent, Massachusetts Correctional Institution, Norfolk

45 Mass. App. Ct. 304 · Massachusetts Appeals Court · Aug 13, 1998

“clearly established statutory or constitutional right[] of which a reasonable person would have known.” … Hutton’s rights were not clearly established, and the defendants, therefore, enjoy immunity from suit under the § 1983 claim and under the common law false imprisonment claim. 6 The defendants’ motions for summary judgment

White v. Gurnon

67 Mass. App. Ct. 622 · Massachusetts Appeals Court · Oct 30, 2006

Was the right clearly established!? … The qualified immunity doctrine shields government officials from monetary liability in their personal capacity provided the official’s conduct did not violate an individual’s rights that were “clearly established” under

Peter Antonellis v. Department of Elder Affairs and Ann Hartsein, Individually and in Her Official Capacity as Secretary of Elder Affairs

Massachusetts Superior Court · Jan 15, 2019

Even if Plaintiff establishes these three elements, a Defendant escapes liability if he or she shows an entitlement to qualified immunity, an affirmative defense. DiMarco C Zappa v. … clearly established rights."

Gauthier v. Town of Dracut

19 Mass. L. Rptr. 579 · Massachusetts Superior Court · Jun 27, 2005

Qualified Immunity The defendants claim as an affirmative defense that Shaw and Piendak are entitled to summary judgment under the doctrine of qualified immunity. … , those rights were clearly established.

Ortiz v. Morris

Massachusetts Appeals Court · Apr 27, 2020

Following discovery, Morris moved for summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity. … Whether an officer is immune "turns on the objective legal reasonableness of the action assessed in light of the legal rules that were clearly established at the time [the action] was taken" (quotations and citation omitted