Case law

Dear v. Devaney

83 Mass. App. Ct. 285 · Massachusetts Appeals Court · Feb 14, 2013

The first, second, and fourth prongs are clearly satisfied here, construing the evidence in favor of Dear. … See Annot., Immunity of Police or Other Law Enforcement Officer from Liability in Defamation Action, 100 A.L.R. 5th 341 , 377-382 (2002). Dear has not argued that a qualified privilege does not apply.

Shaheed-Muhammad v. Dipaolo

393 F. Supp. 2d 80 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Sep 26, 2005

violated that clearly established constitutional right. … Silvia, 32 Mass.App.Ct. 271, 273 , 588 N.E.2d 711 (1992) (to defeat defense of qualified immunity under the Civil Rights Act, plaintiff was “obliged to show that the defendants deprived her of a ‘clearly established’ right

Nolan v. Krajcik

384 F. Supp. 2d 447 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jul 12, 2005

Qualified immunity shields government officials performing discretionary functions from liability for civil damages when “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … Instead, the court determined that the defendant police officers were shielded by qualified immunity because no such constitutional right was clearly established until the Supreme Court decided Wilson v.

Blake v. Berman

598 F. Supp. 1081 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Dec 11, 1984

Defendants also contend that plaintiff’s claim for damages is foreclosed by defendants’ qualified immunity. … right was not clearly established at the time of plaintiff’s transfer to Leavenworth seems dubious at best.

Baggett v. Ashe

41 F. Supp. 3d 113 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Aug 26, 2014

not be shielded by qualified immunity. … Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity protects officials performing discretionary functions when their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable officer should have

McGunigle v. City of Quincy

944 F. Supp. 2d 113 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · May 16, 2013

Qualified Immunity Finally, the individual Defendants move for dismissal based on qualified immunity. The Supreme Court has articulated a two-step procedure for determining qualified immunity. … employee-speech law requires a fact-intensive balancing test, “it can rarely be considered ‘clearly established’ for purposes of qualified immunity.” 87 Yet, without more information, the court cannot determine whether this

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

DeToledo v. County of Suffolk

379 F. Supp. 2d 138 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jul 26, 2005

Qualified Immunity Sinclair and Thomas claim that they are entitled to a grant of qualified immunity for their actions in strip searching Williams. … 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.

Strachan v. Ashe

548 F. Supp. 1193 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Oct 13, 1982

of a *1198 defense based upon qualified good faith immunity. … description of qualified immunity set forth in Scheuer v.

Prall v. City of Boston

985 F. Supp. 2d 115 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Nov 18, 2013

L. c. 268 § 34 was not clearly established at the time of the Prall’s arrest. … The Supreme Court has “held that courts may grant qualified immunity on the ground that a purported right was not ‘clearly established’ by prior case law, without resolving the often more difficult question whether the purported

Dantone v. Bhaddi

570 F. Supp. 2d 167 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jul 15, 2008

Bhaddi is entitled to qualified immunity, and that Dantone has failed to plead and/or establish an Eighth Amendment violation based on his medical treatment. … The right must be clearly established such that a reasonable official would be on notice that the conduct was unlawful and that the conduct violated the clearly established right. See Velez-Diaz v.

Hopper v. Callahan

408 Mass. 621 · Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · Nov 20, 1990

He rejected, however, the assertion of each defendant that he was entitled to qualified immunity from the remaining § 1983 claims, concluding that Hopper had constitutional rights that were clearly established at the time … For that reason, no defendant was entitled to qualified immunity from liability for the consequences of any violation of Hopper’s Federal civil rights that he may have caused. See Anderson v.

Norris v. Moroney

District Court, D. Massachusetts · Aug 17, 2023

Defendants assert further that even if Norris states a plausible claim to relief, they are entitled to qualified immunity because they did not violate clearly established law. Mot. to Dismiss Mem. 44 [Doc. … See Stock, 2021 WL 5016140 at *7 (holding that defendants were entitled to qualified immunity where the scope of Packingham was not clearly established as it applied to conditions of supervised release).

Parker v. Town of Swansea

310 F. Supp. 2d 356 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jan 28, 2004

Having answered the first prong of the qualified immunity inquiry in the affirmative, the next inquiry is whether the right was “clearly established” at the time of the shooting. 7 This court concludes that it was. 2. … The Right At Issue Was Clearly Established “The relevant, dispositive inquiry in determining whether a right is clearly established is whether it would be clear to a reasonable officer that his conduct was unlawful in the

Ferreira v. Dubois

963 F. Supp. 1244 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Sep 18, 1996

Qualified immunity exists insofar as defendants’ “ ‘conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional law of which a reasonable person would have known.’ ” Elliott v. … Thus, even when rights are clearly established, “qualified immunity protects a governmental official ‘if it was objectively reasonable for the official to believe that his acts did not violate those rights.’ ” Russell v.

Lucia v. City of Peabody

971 F. Supp. 2d 153 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jan 30, 2013

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 first question under the qualified immunity inquiry is whether that right was clearly established in late April 2008, at the time of the relevant events.

Demers Ex Rel. Demers v. Leominster School Department

263 F. Supp. 2d 195 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · May 16, 2003

Even if the law is clearly established, an official is entitled to qualified immunity if at the time of the challenged actions, such official’s belief that his or her actions were lawful is “objectively legally reasonable … such rights were not clearly established.

Pentlarge v. Murphy

541 F. Supp. 2d 421 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Mar 31, 2008

immunity. 10 The First Circuit employs a three-part procedure in order to determine whether a state actor is entitled to qualified immunity. … However, plaintiffs’ damages claim must fail on the second prong of the qualified immunity analysis.

Doe v. Town of Wayland

179 F. Supp. 3d 155 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Apr 13, 2016

“The doctrine of qualified immunity shields officials from civil liability so long as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitu *170 tional rights of which a reasonable person would have known … “Qualified immunity is available to the defendants if, at the time of the alleged violations, the law was not clearly established.” Savard v. Rhode Island, 320 F.3d 34 , 38 (1st Cir.2003).

Fisichelli v. Town of Methuen

653 F. Supp. 1494 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Feb 23, 1987

The Town Council-lors and the former director of the Me-thuen Industrial Finance Authority would, therefore, have qualified immunity if the federal rights they allegedly violated were not clearly established. … In this case, the statutory right that defendants are alleged to have violated was at the relevant time clearly established. The defendants are, therefore, not protected by qualified immunity.