Case law

Commonwealth v. ELM Medical Laboratories, Inc.

33 Mass. App. Ct. 71 · Massachusetts Appeals Court · Jul 24, 1992

Because the qualified immunity of public officials is personal to the official, see Rodrigues v. … ”), even if established, it would not necessarily preclude the liability of the sovereign (in the absence of its immunity), if the jury were to find that Ridley and Frechette, with the protection of qualified immunity, violated

Hilchey v. City of Haverhill

537 F. Supp. 2d 255 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Feb 1, 2008

Before asking the second question, however, the issue of qualified immunity must be addressed. D. Qualified Immunity 1. … Second, the Court must determine whether the right was “clearly established at the time of the alleged violation”. Abrew-Guzman, 241 F.3d at 73 .

Delaney v. Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority

24 F. Supp. 3d 121 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jun 4, 2014

Qualified Immunity For much the same reason, defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. … “A right is clearly established and immunity will not issue only if ‘every reasonable official would have understood that what he is doing violates that right.’ ” Id. at 50-51 (quoting Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, — U.S. -, 131 S.Ct

JAKLIN SUZETH GOTAY & Others v. JULIANN CREEN & Others

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · Mar 21, 2025

Qualified immunity. … Government officials are entitled to qualified immunity from § 1983 claims for damages if "their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known

Garvey v. MacDonald

665 F. Supp. 2d 47 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Oct 22, 2009

To summarize, courts in strip-search cases follow the familiar three-part qualified immunity inquiry: (1) have the plaintiffs alleged a deprivation of an actual constitutional right; (2) was the right clearly established … Accordingly, the measuring date of August 4, 2008, is firmly established for qualified immunity purposes here.

Brown v. Pepe

42 F. Supp. 3d 310 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Sep 8, 2014

any of Brown’s “clearly established” constitutional rights. … Qualified immunity attaches to discretionary conduct of government officials that “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v.

Nicole MacTaggart and Others / Glenn Wilder and Others / Irene Ray and Others / Anne Weiss and Others / Dianne L. Depalma and Others / Benjamin Brophy and Others / Robert Johnson and Others / Patricia Beckett and Others / Mary D. Lombardi

Massachusetts Superior Court · Feb 17, 2024

Scope of the UAGA Qualified Immunity Provision. … of the statutory qualified immunity was an affirmative defense.

Alake v. City of Boston

40 Mass. App. Ct. 610 · Massachusetts Appeals Court · Jun 27, 1996

child was a policy decision immune from suit, the decision by a school principal and teacher to send an injured handicapped child out to the playground unaccompanied was “clearly ministerial,” and therefore was not immunized … App. 4th 218, 227-228 (1995) (qualified immunity provision of statute did not abrogate general duty to supervise students); Doe v. Escambia County Sch. Bd., 599 So. 2d 226, 227 (Fla. Dist. Ct.

Vacca v. Barletta

753 F. Supp. 400 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Dec 12, 1990

Qualified Immunity Government officials who are not granted absolute immunity are entitled to qualified immunity from suit. … law, but whether that law was clearly established at the time an action occurred....

Riverdale Mills Corp. v. United States

337 F. Supp. 2d 247 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Mar 16, 2004

In evaluating a claim for qualified immunity, a court must determine: 1) whether the plaintiffs allegations, if true, establish a constitutional violation, 2) whether the right was clearly established at the time of the alleged … The answer to each inquiry must be affirmative to overcome a defense of qualified immunity. Id. The Court is underwhelmed by defendants’ arguments that they are entitled to qualified immunity.

Opalenik v. LaBrie

945 F. Supp. 2d 168 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Mar 22, 2013

As Magistrate Judge Judith Dein explained: Qualified immunity shields government officials performing discretionary functions from liability for civil damages when “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … rules that were clearly established at the time it was taken.”

Passatempo v. McMenimen

458 Mass. 1007 · Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · Oct 14, 2010

The court did not expressly address the qualified immunity issue. Id. The defendant appealed. Id. On appeal, the Ninth Circuit did not reach the qualified immunity issue as to the first set of claims. 7 Id. at 303-304 . … He may, as we twice clearly indicated in McMenimen I, pursue the immunity issues as a matter of right in *1010 his direct appeal. Id. at 187 & 193 n.13, citing Littles, supra at 880 .

Hunt v. Massi

5 F. Supp. 3d 160 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Mar 25, 2014

Overview of Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity protects public officials from civil liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 , as long as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights which … The Right was Clearly Established.

Howes v. Hitchcock

66 F. Supp. 2d 203 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Sep 9, 1999

conduct violated clearly established law.” … To prevail on their qualified immunity defense, the officers must first establish that a prudent police officer with the information they collectively possessed reasonably could have believed that probable cause to arrest

Dinsdale v. Commonwealth

424 Mass. 176 · Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · Feb 3, 1997

Government officials are normally protected only by a qualified immunity, and those officials seeking an absolute exemption from personal liability must show that public policy requires an immunity of that scope. … In Chicopee Lions Club, supra at 251, we established that the scope of prosecutorial immunity under G. L. c. 12 is “at least as broad as under § 1983.” See Rodriques v.

Spencer v. Roche

755 F. Supp. 2d 250 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Nov 8, 2010

Qualified Immunity Defendant VHS contends that its nurse employees are entitled to qualified immunity for their actions, and that it cannot be liable under a theory of vicarious or supervisory liability for actions that are … Defendants Roche and Morris do not assert qualified immunity as a defense on summary judgment. 13 .

Doyle v. Dukakis

699 F. Supp. 357 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Nov 4, 1988

Qualified Immunity. The Court need not rest its decision on such a broad determination, however, in light of the qualified immunity from suit available to these defendants. In Harlow v. … The Supreme Court wrote that if a judge, on summary judgment, determines that “the law was clearly established at the time an action occurred, the immunity defense ordinarily should fail since a reasonably competent public

Hudson v. Spencer

180 F. Supp. 3d 70 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Sep 25, 2015

Qualified immunity Qualified immunity protects state officials against § 1983 suits for damages if them conduct did “not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have … To determine whether qualified immunity applies, the court must decide 1) whether the official violated the plaintiffs constitutional right and 2) whether that right was clearly established at the time of the violation.

DeMayo v. Nugent

475 F. Supp. 2d 110 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Feb 21, 2007

As a result of not finding the constitutional right at stake “clearly established,” this Court is not compelled to reach the third prong of qualified immunity. … a “clearly established” rule.

Carroll v. City of Quincy

441 F. Supp. 2d 215 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jun 9, 2006

Under the doctrine of qualified immunity: government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … The defendants are entitled to qualified immunity unless: 1) the plaintiff’s allegations, if true, establish a constitutional violation, 2) the right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation and 3) a similarly