Case law

Simpson v. Gallant

231 F. Supp. 2d 341 · District Court, D. Maine · Jul 17, 2002

Rennie, 264 F.3d 86, 113 (1st Cir.2001) (“Qualified immunity protects state actors ‘from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which … justify [affording] qualified immunity [to a city].

Bradbury v. GMAC Mortgage, LLC

58 A.3d 1054 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Nov 29, 2012

However, because the Maine Rules of Civil Procedure establish that affidavits are not pleadings, the defective affidavits executed by Jeffrey Stephan do not qualify for the protection of that privilege. See M.R. Civ. … The privilege does not immunize a party from liability simply because a statement is made in the context of a judicial proceeding. See Vahlsing Christina Corp. v.

Santoni v. Potter

222 F. Supp. 2d 14 · District Court, D. Maine · Aug 19, 2002

A government official enjoys immunity from individual liability unless (1) he violated a constitutional right, (2) that right was clearly established at the time of the violation, and (3) an objectively reasonable official … immunity.

Josh Rinaldi v. Maine Correctional Center

2025 ME 60 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Jul 8, 2025

Adaptation is most clearly demonstrated by the design, manufacture, or modification of the object for use on the realty. See id. ¶ 20. … But in McDonald, the area where the plaintiff fell was clearly part of the building. See McDonald, 2020 ME 119, ¶¶ 1-5, 239 A.3d 662.

Turner v. Collins

390 A.2d 537 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Aug 31, 1978

to actions sounding in tort, thereby to establish a right of recovery of the full amount of the judgments entered against the State. … The provision in the Resolve relating to the ordinary “conduct” of an action and to the “liabilities of the parties and elements of damage” is qualified in the same paragraph of the Resolve by the express provision that “

Dall v. Goulet

871 F. Supp. 518 · District Court, D. Maine · Dec 21, 1994

The Maine Tort Claims Act standard for qualified immunity differs from that applied to section 1983 claims. 14 M.R.S.A. § 8111. See McLain v. … ’s actions were lawful 'in light of clearly established law and the information’ that Defendant possessed.”

Bell v. Town of Wells

510 A.2d 509 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · May 23, 1986

doctrine of sovereign immunity bar this suit? … Thus, in Cush-ing, the State was clearly the real party in interest based on its title ownership, its clearly established trustee status, and its role as grantor of the interests in question. 420 A.2d at 923 .

Steeves v. City of Rockland

600 F. Supp. 2d 143 · District Court, D. Maine · Feb 18, 2009

“[T]here is no legitimate doubt that the right asserted here was clearly established.” Id. … Thus, defeating a qualified immunity defense requires a showing of an incremental degree of error—an incommensurate use of force beyond that needed to establish a garden-variety excessive force claim and, further, beyond

Selby v. Cumberland County

796 A.2d 678 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · May 15, 2002

Immunity exists even when the official lacked the authority to do the act, or abused the discretion. 5 Id. [¶ 7] An act qualifies as a discretionary function if the act is essential to the realization or accomplishment of … A governmental official will not be shielded from liability, however, for actions that so clearly exceed the scope of the official’s authority that the official cannot be said to be acting in an official capacity.

Susan Hamilton v. Drummond Woodsum

223 A.3d 904 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Jan 21, 2020

In 2009, Hamilton became the full-time coordinator of the MSA. 2 We recognize that this appeal is interlocutory, but, because the asserted basis for DW’s appeal is its complete or qualified immunity pursuant to … Hamilton’s complaint establishes that DW was hired to perform a governmental function on behalf of a governmental entity consistent with that governmental entity’s contractual and legal obligations.

Haskell v. Phinney

595 F. Supp. 637 · District Court, D. Maine · Sep 28, 1984

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT The Defendant Sheriffs Qualified Immunity The defendants argue that the action against the defendant sheriff should be dismissed as a result of qualified immunity. They rely upon Harlow v. … U.S. at 818 [ 102 S.Ct. at 2738 ] or, if the law was not clearly established, summary judgment should be granted for the official.

State v. Melvin

390 A.2d 1024 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Aug 3, 1978

immunity to a witness against the defendant. … The overwhelming evidence of guilt that was independently produced by the State clearly corroborated the trustworthiness of the confession.

Portz v. St. Cloud State Univ. & Minn. State Colls. & Universities

297 F. Supp. 3d 929 · District Court, D. Maine · Feb 26, 2018

The Eleventh Amendment bars suit against state governments brought in federal court unless the state has clearly and unequivocally waived its immunity, Faibisch v. … Plaintiffs must thus establish that Title IX abrogated sovereign immunity with respect to equal-protection claims brought under Section 1983. In Egerdahl v.

Westberry v. Fisher

309 F. Supp. 12 · District Court, D. Maine · Oct 25, 1980

He then concluded: Hence I take it as a roughly accurate generalization that members of a city council, and other public officers not in the exceptional category of officers having complete immunity, would have a qualified … Although the Eleventh Amendment in terms inhibits only federal court suits against a state by citizens of another state, it has long been established that a state is equally immune from federal court suits brought by its

Richards v. Ellis

233 A.2d 37 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Sep 6, 1967

A finding and judgment more sensitive to the applicant than that he has not established his good moral character can hardly be imagined. … within the principles established in Stephenson v.

Martin v. Somerset County

387 F. Supp. 2d 65 · District Court, D. Maine · Sep 16, 2005

In answering Martin’s complaint the defendants asserted a qualified immunity defense. … In the second stage, the question is “whether the right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation such that a reasonable officer would be on notice that his conduct was unlawful.” Id.

Portland, Saco & Portsmouth R. R. v. City of Saco

60 Me. 196 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Jul 1, 1872

They are not land, but are clearly distinguishable from it. The definition of the terms, depot, and land, are distinct and dissimilar. … , or their qualified right to, or limited use of, the real estate acquired under their charter by right of eminent domain; and certain we are, that if there is any such implied exemption, it is subordinate to the sovereign

Penny v. Walker

64 Me. 430 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Jul 1, 1874

The single question is whether a mail-carrier, who is at the time engaged in conveying the United States mail, is justified in using force to repel an officer duly qualified and having a legal warrant for his arrest to answer … It may be regarded as certain that it was no part of the design of congress in these provisions to afford to the employees of the post office department, or to mail contractors and their servants, immunity from arrest at

Russo v. Reed

93 F. Supp. 554 · District Court, D. Maine · Oct 23, 1950

Therefore, although perhaps federal jurisdiction might have been grounded upon diversity of citizenship and amount in controversy, Title 28 U.S.C.A. § 1332 (a) (1), it seems to us that such jurisdiction clearly rests upon … Neither do we consider the plaintiffs’ argument that the statute is also invalid, first because it not only requires residence, but also residence for three years, in order to qualify for a resident commercial fishing license

Myshrall v. Key Bank National Ass'n

802 A.2d 419 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Jul 30, 2002

Although it does not completely preempt state law causes of action for the mishandling of consumer credit information, 5 section 1681h(e) gives furnishers of credit information qualified immunity from state law causes of … This qualified immunity, however, is not available to a defendant who acts with malice or a willful intent to injure the plaintiff. Id.