Case law

King v. Higgins

370 F. Supp. 1023 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jan 30, 1974

The decision to order plaintiff from the minimal security of the prison farm 4 to segregation, with the attendant possibility of reclassification and future re-punishment, 5 is clearly one that markedly changed his status … “use” immunity for statements the inmate might make at the disciplinary hearing and a requirement that the inmate be informed at the hearing of *1028 this immunity and its consequences; 2. permission for the inmate to bring

In Re NSCO, Inc.

427 B.R. 165 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Massachusetts · Mar 29, 2010

DERIVED JUDICIAL IMMUNITY The DOL alleges that denial of the Proposed Order does not involve the Trustee’s derived judicial immunity and that in any event, he is not entitled to an order conferring judicial immunity in the … In addressing whether the trustee’s derived judicial immunity by acting with the permission of the court established jurisdiction, the AB & C Group court stated: It may be that when the Trustee acts as a Plan administrator

Cline v. Burke

District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jul 12, 2023

Qualified Immunity “The general rule of qualified immunity . . . is that ‘government officials performing discretionary functions, generally are shielded from liability for civil … damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’”

Riley v. City Of Boston

District Court, D. Massachusetts · Apr 18, 2025

Qualified immunity protects public officials, in their individual capacity, “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … Determining whether a right is “clearly established” is a two-part inquiry.

Rosa v. Lawrence Housing Authority

District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jul 20, 2021

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 … (2) that the right infringed upon was not clearly established at the time of the alleged violation.

Hernandez v. Colon

District Court, D. Massachusetts · May 25, 2018

Qualified Immunity "The principle of qualified immunity shields a police officer from liability for civil damages when his conduct does not violate clearly-established statutory … Colon is not entitled to qualified immunity. "[T]he law was clearly established in 1998 that an officer in [his] circumstances had a duty to intervene." Torres-Rivera v.

Local 589, Amalgamated Transit Union v. Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority

Massachusetts Superior Court · Feb 7, 2022

ANALYSIS To establish an entitlement to injunctive relief, the union must establish that: (1) it is likely to succeed on the merits of its action; (2) it and/or its members would suffer irreparable harm without the injunction … That the MBTA might be able to go even further in protecting public health in no way suggests that taking steps that it clearly has the legal authority to take is unreasonable.

Miley v. John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance Co.

148 F. Supp. 299 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Apr 11, 1957

It establishes the state employees group insurance commission with authority to establish such reasonable rules and regulations as may be necessary for the administration of the act. … It was clearly free to negotiate with other companies to get an equally low offer from some competitor.

Local 589, Amalgamated Transit Union v. Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority

Massachusetts Superior Court · Jan 5, 2022

ANALYSIS To establish an entitlement to injunctive relief, the union must establish that: (1) it is likely to succeed on the merits of its action; (2) it and/or its members would suffer irreparable harm without the injunction … That the MBTA might be able to go even further in protecting public health in no way suggests that taking steps that it clearly has the legal authority to take is unreasonable.

Commonwealth v. George

7 Mass. L. Rptr. 631 · Massachusetts Superior Court · Nov 17, 1997

Therefore, as George concedes, in 1979 the tolling provision clearly applied to both the rape and indecent assault charges. Subsequent amendments to §63, however, have admittedly muddied the waters. … George cannot establish that the statute fails this test. See Scherling v.

Rodriguez v. City of Springfield

127 F.R.D. 426 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jul 21, 1989

Based upon past experience, the court assumes that at least one of the bases for the motion for summary judgment will be the qualified immunity of the defendants. … However, in determining whether the defendant would enjoy qualified immunity, the court stated, “[w]e read the [Supreme Court’s] strong condemnation of insubstantial suits against Government officers as calling for application

Griffin v. West Side Corp. (In Re Erlin Manor Nursing Home, Inc.)

86 B.R. 307 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Sep 25, 1985

At the beginning of each fiscal year, the Commission establishes an interim rate, according to which providers of care are reimbursed monthly. … The injunction entered by the bankruptcy court in this case clearly exceeds these limitations because it is directed against the “Commonwealth of Massachusetts.” This defect, however, is easily cured.

Massachusetts v. Wampanoag Tribe of Gay Head

36 F. Supp. 3d 229 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jul 1, 2014

In part, the IGRA established a regulatory structure for gaming on Indian lands and created the National Indian Gaming Commission (“NIGC”). … Graham, 489 U.S. 838, 840-42 , 109 S.Ct. 1519 , 103 L.Ed.2d 924 (1989) (defense of tribal immunity is not a ground for removal); Gully v.

Townley v. Williams

1990 Mass. App. Div. 1 · Massachusetts District Court, Appellate Division · Jan 2, 1990

Clearly, the City of Boston, under the circumstances, was subject to G.Lc. 84, § 15. … However, as noted, the legal basis of the trial court's judgment is expressly and clearly set forth.

Gerfman Global, LLC v. Kershaw

33 Mass. L. Rptr. 341 · Massachusetts Superior Court · May 17, 2016

The Master Deed establishing the condominium was executed in 2001. … The Trustees’ new allocation methodology is not immune from review. The Board of Trustees is controlled by the residential unit owners.

Sanchez-Souquet ex rel. Sanchez v. Jiminy Peak, Inc.

7 Mass. L. Rptr. 583 · Massachusetts Superior Court · Oct 15, 1997

We do not believe that Legislature intended to alter the well-established common law rule that an employer is liable for the negligence of its agents or employees. … objective of the Ski Statute was to retain common-law protections traditionally afforded to defendants, such as the doctrine of “primary assumption of risk,” 2 and to limit the obligations of ski areas by defining more clearly

Rosati v. Boston Pipe Covering, Inc.

47 Mass. App. Ct. 121 · Massachusetts Appeals Court · Jun 14, 1999

L. c. 149, § 27, is certainly a suit “between two [or more] persons which clearly sets forth a controversy concerning property.” Id. at 223. … In Whalen , the court concluded that the erroneous denial of a jury trial was not prejudicial because the record clearly established that the plaintiff was not a “qualified handicapped person” who could bring a cause of action

Cruz v. Commonwealth

Massachusetts Appeals Court · Jun 7, 2023

To do so, "the Commonwealth has granted a limited waiver of its sovereign immunity under the erroneous convictions statute to that class of claimants who establish that they are eligible for relief." … Indeed, it says, clearly mistakenly, Cruz's "overturned convictions are not probative of his actual innocence." Ante at . And the court majority goes further.

Rose Chalet Functions Corporation v. Evans

264 F. Supp. 790 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Feb 17, 1967

This raises the intertwined problems of qualified privilege and abuse of privilege, or as the latter is sometimes called, bad faith. *795 We do not yet have from the Supreme Court a clear light, or series of lights, to mark … Plaintiff would have the burden of alleging and establishing that defendant did not act in good faith performance of his official duty as he understood it. 4 Inasmuch as plaintiff would not have a state tort cause of action

Schaick v. Church of Scientology of California, Inc.

535 F. Supp. 1125 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Mar 26, 1982

We then turn to those claims against which the First Amendment affords no immunity. … religion over another” by taking judicial notice of the fact that an established religion is a bona fide religion while refusing to give similar treatment to a less established religion.