Case law

Maxwell v. AIG Domestic Claims, Inc.

460 Mass. 91 · Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · Jun 30, 2011

Under the statute, however, immunity is available, in “the absence of malice or bad faith.” Id. This is a form of qualified immunity. See Kobrin v. … Ct. 922, 923-924 (1988) (persons filing reports with board of podiatry enjoy qualified immunity and plaintiffs “hav[e] the burden of overcoming [statutory] immunity”).

Soto v. Bzdel

223 F. Supp. 2d 332 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Aug 26, 2002

The court was well aware of Hope when it issued its decision and, in fact, cited Hope in the first step of its qualified immunity analysis. … In Hope , the Supreme Court elaborated on what is required for a particular right to be “clearly established” in the context of qualified immunity.

Meagher v. Andover School Committee

94 F. Supp. 3d 21 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Mar 31, 2015

Therefore, McGrath is immune from liability under the doctrine of qualified immunity. … As the First Circuit has cautioned, “[b]ecause Pickering's constitutional rule turns upon a fact-intensive balancing test, it can rarely be considered clearly established for qualified immunity purposes.”

Vernazarro v. Collins

1994 Mass. App. Div. 38 · Massachusetts District Court, Appellate Division · Mar 11, 1994

Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511 (1988) in which the court held that the governmental official is immune from suit unless his actions violate clearly established law. Id at 526. … We conclude that the defendant Collins is entitled to qualified immunity in this action and that the motion to dismiss should have been allowed.

LaSota v. Town of Topsfield

979 F. Supp. 45 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Sep 15, 1997

Qualified Immunity In the performance of discretionary functions, government officials, as individuals, are “generally shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established … In the First Circuit, qualified immunity analysis involves two prongs: First, the court must determine, as a matter of law, whether the constitutional right in question was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation

Temple v. Marlborough Division of the District Court Department

395 Mass. 117 · Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · Jun 10, 1985

Donaldson, 422 U.S. 563 (1975) (superintendent of State hospital has qualified immunity); Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232 (1974) (Governor and other State executive officials have *130 qualified immunity); Pierson v. … Md. 1982) (State’s qualified immunity doctrine did not render State remedy inadequate under Parratf).

Brown v. Massachusetts

950 F. Supp. 2d 274 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · May 30, 2013

to the doctrine of qualified immunity. … “[T]he second, ‘clearly established,’ step of the qualified immunity analysis ... in turn, has two aspects.” Maldonado v. Fontanes, 568 F.3d 263, 269 (1st Cir.2009).

Ford v. Clarke

746 F. Supp. 2d 273 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Sep 30, 2010

“[T]he second, ‘clearly established,’ step of the qualified immunity analysis ... in turn, has two aspects.” Maldonado v. Fontanes, 568 F.3d 263, 269 (1st Cir.2009). … In support of their qualified immunity defense, the DOC defendants argue that Ford cannot satisfy either aspect of the “clearly established” step of the analysis. This court disagrees.

McNamara v. Honeyman

406 Mass. 43 · Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · Nov 13, 1989

It is silent as to gross negligence and hence, we conclude that a public employee is immune from a claim arising out of gross negligence because such a claim qualifies as a “negligent or wrongful act or omission” under § … or immunities secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States.

Piccone v. McClain

720 F. Supp. 2d 139 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jul 2, 2010

Because the court will find that qualified immunity applies, this memorandum will not reach the issue of absolute immunity. The First Circuit has a two-part test for determining entitlement to qualified immunity. … For the right at issue to be clearly established, the state of the law must be clear and the facts must clearly implicate the right at issue.

Lewis v. City of Boston

829 F. Supp. 471 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Aug 3, 1993

not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known. … In analyzing the defense of qualified immunity in this case, the court’s first task is to ascertain whether plaintiff has alleged, with sufficient particularity, that Officers Butler and Holland violated his clearly established

Boston Taxi Owners Ass'n v. City of Boston

187 F. Supp. 3d 339 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · May 20, 2016

While the Commissioner has not ■ convinced the Court that he is likely to succeed in his appeal with respect to qualified' immunity, the constitutional issue in this case is neither elementary nor well-established. … Defendant will suffer no substantial harm from proceeding directly with the case rather than waiting for the qualified immunity issue to be resolved on appeal.

Brust v. City of Worcester

947 F. Supp. 2d 143 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Sep 27, 2012

a defendant to file a late motion raising the defense of qualified immunity has the potential to cause unfair prejudice and costly delay. … Although defendants moved for the ruling on qualified immunity jointly, the only question presented was whether defendant Need-ham is entitled to qualified immunity. .

Abrazinski v. DuBois

940 F. Supp. 361 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Aug 16, 1996

In considering whether the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity, the question is whether the rights that underlie his claim were so “clearly established” that the defendants must have known their actions would violate … To overcome the defendants’ objection that they are protected by qualified immunity for their conduct of the disciplinary proceedings, then, the plaintiff must show that it was “clearly established” (i) that it was a violation

Sheppard v. Aloisi

384 F. Supp. 2d 478 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Aug 11, 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 … As detailed above, the constitutional right at issue must be clearly established at the time of the putative violation to negate the protection of the qualified immunity doctrine.

C.M. v. Commissioner of the Department of Children and Families

Massachusetts Appeals Court · Apr 22, 2020

"[T]he relevant inquiry on summary judgment as to the defense of qualified immunity is whether a reasonable official could have believed his actions were lawful, in light of clearly established law and the information possessed … established; and (3) whether a reasonable person in the defendant's position would understand that his conduct violated those clearly established rights" (footnote omitted).

Stephen v. MacKinnon

7 Mass. L. Rptr. 241 · Massachusetts Superior Court · Jul 25, 1997

Government officials performing discre *245 tionary functions are entitled to qualified immunity from suit under 42 U.S.C. §1983 if their conduct did not “violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of … a clearly established right.

LaChance v. Commissioner of Correction

475 Mass. 757 · Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · Oct 21, 2016

The judge concluded that the defense of qualified immunity would therefore be unavailable to the defendants if they directly participated in this violation of LaChance's clearly established rights. … See O'Malley, 415 Mass. at 142 (plaintiffs can overcome government officials' qualified immunity defense by showing that defendants directly participated in violating plaintiffs' clearly established rights).

Pereira v. Commissioner of Social Services

432 Mass. 251 · Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · Aug 9, 2000

immunity because the *253 constitutional right of free speech, he said, was “clearly established,” and a reasonable official “would have understood” that firing Pereira would viólate her constitutional rights. … To overcome a claim of qualified immunity, a plaintiff must show that the State official directly participated in violating a right of the plaintiff that is “clearly established.” See Anderson v.

Hootstein v. Collins

928 F. Supp. 2d 326 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Mar 8, 2013

was clearly established at the time of defendants’ actions. … to qualified immunity. .