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.”

Estate of Fortier v. City of Lewiston

997 A.2d 84 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Jun 3, 2010

Only the governmental entity can have “ownership” of qualifying equipment. 4 14 M.R.S. § 8104-A(1). … City has established that there is no available insurance coverage apart from the Maine Municipal Association self-insured risk pool, which is available only if the City is not immune pursuant to the MTCA.

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.

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.

Picher v. Roman Catholic Bishop of Portland

974 A.2d 286 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Jul 7, 2009

The court granted the Bishop’s motion, holding that the Bishop qualifies as a charitable organization and has not waived its charitable immunity pursuant to 14 M.R.S. § 158 because it has no insurance coverage for the claims … In 1961, the Rhode Island Supreme Court upheld a statute establishing charitable immunity for hospitals, but it stated that “[t]he question of whether such immunity as a matter of public policy is sound or otherwise may be

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.

Geary v. Stanley Medical Research Institute

939 A.2d 86 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Jan 15, 2008

Reviewing these concerns, we conclude that the rationales mandating qualified immunity for public officials are not applicable to private parties.” Wyatt v. … Id. at 168 , 112 S.Ct. 1827 . [¶ 18] The good faith clause of the UAGA does not explicitly provide immunity from suit, nor is there any suggestion that qualified immunity is involved in this dispute between private parties

Lightfoot v. School Administrative District No. 35

816 A.2d 63 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Feb 28, 2003

No. 35 is not immune from liability for its negligent acts. … No. 35’s allowing the wrestling team to run through the High School’s hallways does not qualify as the operation of a public budding. The Superior Court correctly concluded that S.A.D.

Marcoux v. Parker Hannifin/Nichols Portland Division

881 A.2d 1138 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Sep 19, 2005

S-1173 (1995). [¶ 12] Hence, the legislative history of section 104 establishes that the Legislature intended that a 3rd party em *1143 ployer’s immunity from suit by a temporary employee is subject to the requirement that … measures in order to establish a breach of duty.

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

Camps Newfound/Owatonna, Inc. v. Town of Harrison

655 A.2d 876 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Mar 7, 1995

They all have the opportunity to qualify for an exemption by choosing to dispense the majority of their charity locally. … Furthermore, the burden on interstate commerce does not clearly exceed the local benefits.

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

Clark v. Benton, LLC

189 A.3d 761 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Jul 17, 2018

DISCUSSION [¶ 8] Benton, LLC, contends that the Act's definition of "employer" is ambiguous and does not resolve the issue of whether it may qualify for immunity as an employer pursuant to 39-A M.R.S. § 104. 39-A M.R.S. § … Even if all of the above facts were undisputed, Benton, LLC, cannot establish its claim to immunity under any applicable doctrine.

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.