Case law

Santiago v. Feeney

379 F. Supp. 2d 150 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jul 26, 2005

immunity because “their conduct was objectively reasonable in light of clearly established law.” 40 For the relevant aspects of this case, Massachusetts law is more clearly established than its federal counterpart. … In addition, § 1983 and the MCRA employ the same qualified immunity standard. 41 This court, therefore, will begin its analysis by determining whether Eddings and Feeney are entitled to qualified immunity with respect to

Hernandez v. Montanez

36 F. Supp. 3d 202 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · May 2, 2014

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 … qualified immunity.”

Longval v. Commissioner of Correction

404 Mass. 325 · Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · Mar 13, 1989

They advance as a reason the affirmative defense of qualified immunity, claiming that their actions were taken within areas assigned to their discretion and were not contrary to principles of constitutional law clearly established … The defendants were not entitled to summary judgment on their theory of qualified governmental immunity.

Damon v. Hukowicz

964 F. Supp. 2d 120 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Aug 9, 2013

Qualified immunity shields government officials performing discretionary functions from liability for civil damages when “their *147 conduct does not violate ‘clearly established’ statutory or constitutional rights of which … immunity because it was not clearly established that such conduct violated Plaintiffs Fourth Amendment rights.

Williams v. City of Brockton

59 F. Supp. 3d 228 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Nov 13, 2014

“The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials ‘from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … Therefore, the *244 individual Police Defendants have not established that they are immune from liability on Williams’ surviving claims against them under the doctrine of qualified immunity. D.

Doe Ex Rel. Doe v. Massachusetts Department for Social Services

948 F. Supp. 103 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Nov 8, 1996

Since qualified immunity applies whenever the asserted right was not “clearly established,” a threshold inquiry in any case in which the defense is raised is whether the asserted constitutional right exists at all. … Tetreault is therefore eligible for qualified immunity unless a reasonable social worker would have known that John had a clearly established right on May 3, 1995, to meet in private with his attorney.

Howes v. Chesley

20 Mass. L. Rptr. 350 · Massachusetts Superior Court · Dec 21, 2005

In determining whether a party is entitled to qualified immunity, the court must consider three questions: (1) whether a. constitutional right was violated; (2) if so, whether the constitutional right in question clearly … Defendants’ qualified immunity argument is based principally on the latter two questions. 2 The defendants argue that Howes’ constitutional right to be free from a strip search in the circumstances of this case was not clearly

Heinrich Ex Rel. Heinrich v. Sweet

62 F. Supp. 2d 282 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Aug 16, 1999

Whether the Private Defendants are Entitled to Qualified Immunity. 1. Whether Any Private Defendants May Claim Qualified Immunity. … The private defendants argue that they are entitled to summary judgment based on qualified, immunity because the constitutional rights alleged to have been violated were not clearly established at the time of the relevant

Parker v. Town of Swansea

270 F. Supp. 2d 92 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · May 27, 2003

The officers, however, contend that they are protected by the doctrine of qualified immunity. … Town of Plymouth, 191 F.3d at 23 (disputed facts precluded summary judgment on issue of qualified immunity); Swain v.

Kraft v. Police Commissioner of Boston

410 Mass. 155 · Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · May 15, 1991

The short and complete answer is that, assuming that qualified immunity is available with respect to violations of G. … established” by the language of § 4 (9A).

Donald M v. Matava

668 F. Supp. 714 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jul 13, 1987

Massachusetts General Hospital’s motion to dismiss based on qualified immunity arising out of the qualified immunity of its employees is DENIED. See generally Owen v. … City of Independence, 445 U.S. 622 , 100 S.Ct. 1398 , 63 L.Ed.2d 673 (1980) (Court rejected idea of extending “to municipalities a qualified immunity based on the good faith of their officers.”).

Medeiros v. Town of Dracut

21 F. Supp. 2d 82 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Sep 18, 1998

There are, of course, two questions to be addressed in any qualified immunity analysis. … The first question, whether the right the plaintiff claims the defendant infringed was "clearly established” at the time of the alleged violation, is not at issue in this case.

McGrath v. Town of Sandwich

169 F. Supp. 3d 251 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Sep 29, 2015

Qualified immunity protects a state official against § 1983 suits unless 1) the official violated the plaintiffs constitutional right and 2) that right was clearly established at the time of the violation. Pearson v. … The Court declines to conclude, as a matter of law, that Officer Bondarek had qualified immunity or that Ty’s claim is without substance.

Melville v. Town of Adams

9 F. Supp. 3d 77 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Mar 27, 2014

The Magistrate Judge also decided that Plaintiff had a clearly established right to be heard at a meaningful time and in a meaningful way, and therefore qualified immunity did not protect Defendants. … Qualified Immunity As to the Board members’ individual-capacity liability, the court concludes that qualified immunity is not available on these facts at this time. “[T]he qualified immunity inquiry is a two-part test.

Stratton v. City of Boston

731 F. Supp. 42 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Dec 28, 1989

Although, as discussed in Part V, infra, the claims against Commissioner Roache individually may be barred by qualified immunity, such immunity does not bar those claims made against Commissioner Roache in his official capacity … This “good faith” standard shields the officials “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

Siegel v. Mayer

30 Mass. L. Rptr. 312 · Massachusetts Superior Court · Sep 18, 2012

The plaintiff suggests no gauge for the application of this test, nor does she cite to any authority establishing it as the benchmark for immunity. … While in Temple the court states, “Court clerks enjoy qualified immunity from suit and are absolutely immune for their conduct when acting at a judge’s direction,” id. at 133 , nothing contained in that decision, or in other

Babson v. Babson

374 Mass. 96 · Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · Dec 28, 1977

In the instant case, an immediate controversy has arisen with respect to Babson’s intent in establishing a marital deduction trust. … , the Commissioner is immune from suit in the courts of the Commonwealth and that he cannot be required to appear and answer to this action, (b) that he has not waived that immunity, and (c) that he does not intend to appear

South Middlesex Opportunity Council, Inc. v. Town of Framingham

752 F. Supp. 2d 85 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Sep 9, 2010

The Defendants have not established that qualified immunity applies to the alleged conduct here. … Similarly, a qualified immunity defense would have to establish that SMOC’s rights under the FHA were not clearly established at the time of the alleged violations, and consequently that a reasonable person in the Defendants

LaLonde v. Eissner

405 Mass. 207 · Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · Jun 19, 1989

Eissner’s motion for summary judgment and have briefed and argued the issue that way here on appeal, we address the issue as presented. 6 The written record before the motion judge clearly supports this view. … Eissner’s court-appointed status entitles him to absolute immunity, we need not address the question whether Dr. Eissner is entitled to qualified immunity.

STEFANIK v. Town of Huntington

536 F. Supp. 2d 106 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Mar 13, 2008

Qualified Immunity As this court recently informed Plaintiff in another case, Stefanik v. … Reno (see n. 1), “[g]overnment officials performing discretionary functions generally are granted a qualified immunity and are ‘shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established