Case law

Meyers v. Miranda

District Court, D. Massachusetts · Mar 30, 2020

Qualified Immunity Generally The individual defendants contend that they are entitled to summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity. … The doctrine of qualified immunity protects public employees “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person

Wright's Case

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · Oct 27, 2020

The act then "establishes a medical marijuana registration or licensing regime . . . that covers nonprofit medical marijuana treatment centers, medical marijuana center dispensary agents, and qualifying patients and personal … In another statement issued later the same year, Lelling reiterated that he would not "effectively immunize" Massachusetts residents from Federal marijuana law enforcement.

Mahon v. United States

795 F. Supp. 2d 149 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jul 7, 2011

The United States, however, bears the burden of establishing the applicability of the discretionary function exception. See Smith v. United States, 943 F.Supp. 159, 168 (D.R.I. 1996); see also Faber v. … The Management Policies dealing with special park uses, however, clearly contemplate such uses being authorized by permits issued directly by the Service to individuals. See Management Policies § 8.6.1.1.

Martin v. Town of Wilmington

13 Mass. L. Rptr. 371 · Massachusetts Superior Court · May 23, 2001

Given that the plaintiffs claim is clearly barred by §10(j) of the Tort Claims Act, this Court need not consider whether, as asserted by the plaintiff, a claim would be viable despite the discretionary function provision … Further, to the extent that the plaintiffs brief asserts a “state created danger,” allegations that the defendants failed to remove John’s assailants from the School fall short of the type of affirmative act necessary to establish

Howard v. Malac

270 F. Supp. 2d 132 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jul 1, 2003

As noted above, this is a well-established right, the infringement of which clearly violates substantive due process. … As an initial matter, the Court notes that the “public function” and “symbiosis” doctrines are clearly inapplicable to this case.

Martinez v. Hubbard

172 F. Supp. 3d 378 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Mar 18, 2016

to qualified immunity. … Qualified Immunity Because there is no identified defendant who can be held liable for any of the claims Martinez makes, I have no occasion to reach the availability of qualified immunity for any defendant.

Kelen v. Massachusetts Turnpike Authority

22 Mass. L. Rptr. 456 · Massachusetts Superior Court · May 3, 2007

Kelen and Pachus must meet the test established in Soto-Lopez to demonstrate that their claim is within the relevant zone of interest to be protected. Id. … The privileges and immunities clause “ ‘establishes a norm of comity,’ . . . that is to prevail among the states with respect to their treatment of each other’s residents.” Hicklin v.

Scottsdale Insurance v. Carrabassett Trading Co.

460 F. Supp. 2d 251 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Oct 31, 2006

Nonetheless, the record clearly indicates that the parties intended that Torres work at Carrabassett for an indefinite amount of time. … Co., 444 Mass. at 603 , 830 N.E.2d 186 (noting that a leasing firm’s client is not immune from tort claims according to the workers’ compensation act).

Lowd v. California Fund Management Co.

235 F. Supp. 486 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Nov 12, 1964

Defendant argues that service on a foreign corporation under the provisions of ch. 181, sec. 3A, can properly be made only upon corporations required to qualify under ch. 181, sec. 3. … Company dealt with service of pi'ocess under G.L. ch. 223, sec. 38, and Remington in its brief clearly conceded that it could have been, but was not, served with process under the provisions of Ch. 223, sec. 38.

Reaves v. Department of Correction

District Court, D. Massachusetts · Sep 20, 2018

Qualified Immunity Because the Plaintiffs have confirmed that they are only seeking injunctive relief for Counts I and II, qualified immunity is not available as … Accordingly, I find that this is a constitutional right that is not clearly established and the individual Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity.

Smith v. Daou

District Court, D. Massachusetts · Mar 4, 2024

The doctrine of qualified immunity protects public employees “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … the right at issue was clearly established at the time of the defendant’s alleged misconduct.

United States v. University of Massachusetts

80 F. Supp. 3d 296 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jan 21, 2015

First, courts must examine whether “the state clearly structured the entity to share its sovereignty.” Fresenius Med. Care Cardiovascular Resources, Inc. v. … The Court notes that the Commonwealth has immunized itself from responsibility for UMMS programs in the past.

Falmouth Hospital v. Commissioner of Public Welfare

23 Mass. App. Ct. 545 · Massachusetts Appeals Court · Feb 25, 1987

the hospital’s claim on the ground that Taft was ineligible for assistance: she had resources in excess of $2,000 — a bank account of $4,295.69 — and, according to the department, she must “spend down” before she could qualify … Referring to the general proposition that the Commonwealth may dictate the terms on which it chooses to forgo its sovereign immunity, see C & M Constr. Co. v.

Skinner v. Boston Housing Authority

690 F. Supp. 109 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jul 5, 1988

The Massachusetts Civil Rights Act is an extraordinarily broad remedy. 11 As yet, Massachusetts courts have not limited it by any doctrine of qualified immunity, by abrogating the concept of respondeat superior, or by granting … immunity for good faith resort to legal processes.

Commonwealth v. McHugh

326 Mass. 249 · Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · Jul 7, 1950

We do not think that such purpose is “clearly manifested” in this instance. We have seen no case holding that Federal legislation has, in general, displaced State anti-trust laws. In Puerto Rico v. Shell Co. (P. … In our opinion the defendants are not immunized against the State anti-monopoly law by any provision of the fisheries cooperative marketing act, U. S. C. (1946 ed.) Title 15, §§ 521, 522.

Chmielinski v. Massachusetts Office of the Commissioner of Probation

484 F. Supp. 2d 201 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Mar 22, 2007

Chmielinski objects to the Magistrate Judge’s analysis and contends that the Eleventh Amendment does not immunize governmental entities from equitable relief. His argument is unavailing. … The plaintiffs excerpt stops short of the operative language in that case which clearly states that such injunc-tive relief is “pursuant to Ex parte Young”. Id. at 12.

Castro v. Beecher

386 F. Supp. 1281 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jan 7, 1975

examinations in 1968-1970 but who passed the 1972 interim examinations and were otherwise qualified; Group B consisted of persons on three eligibility lists established in 1970-1971; Group C consisted of minority candidates … In this respect the decree goes beyond the relief mandated by the Court of Appeals which, in its opinion, clearly contemplated that all appointments would be made on a ratio basis. 459 F.2d at 736-737.

Putnam v. Putnam

425 Mass. 770 · Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · Aug 18, 1997

The plaintiff’s unitrust qualifies as a “charitable remainder unitrust” under § 664(d)(2) of the I.R.C. … At the end of the term, the trust assets pass to, or for the use of, one or more qualified charities. I.R.C. § 664(d)(2)(C).

De Armas v. Elsmore

District Court, D. Massachusetts · Mar 18, 2024

, and (2) the unlawfulness of their conduct was ‘clearly established at the time.’” … Alves moves for summary judgment based on qualified immunity.

Care and Protection of Eve.

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · May 15, 2025

We therefore conclude that the parents have established that they are asserting sincerely held religious beliefs. … The department argues that "[i]t is well established that 'protecting the well-being of children' qualifies as a compelling state interest." See McCauley, 409 Mass. at 137 . See also Prince, 321 U.S. at 168 ; Blixt v.