Case law

Crosby v. Reynolds

763 F. Supp. 666 · District Court, D. Maine · May 6, 1991

On summary judgment, the judge appropriately may determine, not only the currently applicable law, but whether that law was clearly established at the time an action occurred. Harlow v. … I conclude, therefore, that the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity on the plaintiff’s charge that her constitutional right to privacy was invaded.

Roberts v. Stevens

17 L.R.A. 266 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Mar 10, 1892

The decision of two questions is involved : (1,) Does a proper construction of the will disclose the testator’s intention to secure to his son the life enjoyment of the income of a trust estate and its immunity from his son … Brown, 146 Mass. 369 , the court say that the provision securing the income of a trust against alienation, voluntary or involuntary is "sufficient if the intention is clearly gathered from the instrument when construed in

Ziehm v. Ziehm

433 A.2d 725 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Aug 10, 1981

The latter provision would clearly be unnecessary unless the report was already before the court with full evidentiary effect. … (Emphasis added) Additionally, and to insure the objectivity and completeness of the report, the legislature, in 1965 (by P.L. 1965, ch. 299) granted qualified immunity from civil or criminal liability to whoever participates

Lewis v. Keegan

903 A.2d 342 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Jul 28, 2006

, 457 U.S. 800, 818 , 102 S.Ct. 2727 , 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982) (“[GJovernment 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.”).

Cushing v. Cohen

420 A.2d 919 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Oct 7, 1980

memorandum of law was submitted in which one of the points made was: “[t]hat the action is, in reality, one against the State, even though it has been brought nominally against the Attorney General and the Forest Commissioner clearly … (emphasis added) Thus, in its initial appearance in the case the counterclaim which is being urged upon us as the document establishing the abandonment of sovereign immunity itself belies the validity of that contention.

Doe v. Graham

977 A.2d 391 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Aug 13, 2009

status conferred to nonstate mental health institutions and their employees when they admit, treat, or discharge involuntarily committed patients, see 34-B M.R.S. § 3861(1)(A); and (2) our precedent establishing that discretionary … We have indicated that discretionary function immunity does not extend to 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.”

Fowles v. Stearns

886 F. Supp. 894 · District Court, D. Maine · May 17, 1995

Defendants ask this Court to conclude *901 that they are entitled to qualified immunity on the record presented on this motion. … Under section 1983, the deputies would be entitled to qualified immunity if this Court determines, after examination of the “ ‘objective reasonableness’ of an official’s conduct, ... whether the conduct violated ‘clearly

Russell v. Knox County

826 F. Supp. 20 · District Court, D. Maine · Jun 21, 1993

This is a section 1983 civil rights action, and in order to establish a claim, it must be established that there was deliberate indifference to a clearly established constitutional right. The case of Gordon v. … The United States Supreme Court has said that the purpose of a qualified immunity doctrine which is implemented by the deliberate indifference standard is to “protect all but the plainly incompetent or those who knowingly

Turgeon v. Bean

109 Me. 189 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Jun 6, 1912

Both are designed to cover the same situation, that is, immunity from arrest made after petition filed. … So too, General Order No. 27, established by the U. S. Supreme Court in connection with the Act of 1867, covers the same ground as No. 30, 89 Fed. Rep. XII, in connection with the Act of 1898.

Buchanan v. Maine

377 F. Supp. 2d 276 · District Court, D. Maine · Jul 22, 2005

Federal Abrogation of State Immunity: General Principles The State contends that even if the Plaintiffs Amended Complaint stated a viable Title II claim, it is entitled to qualified immunity under Elder v. … Does the consent decree provide a sufficient basis to establish a waiver of immunity? The issue was not briefed and there is no further information about the terms of the consent decree.

Springer v. Seaman

658 F. Supp. 1502 · District Court, D. Maine · Apr 30, 1987

Moreover, Plaintiffs counsel has not offered any credible excuse for his failure to file any objection to the federal defendants’ motion within the ten-day period established by the Rule. 3 The motion clearly indicated on … Nor has Seaman cited any authority to establish that prior to the passage of the MTCA a municipal employee enjoyed common law immunity for intentional libels or slanders. Cf.

Farley v. Department of Human Services

621 A.2d 404 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Mar 2, 1993

AFDC is a cooperative federal-state program that provides monthly welfare benefits to families whose income falls below an established level of need. … In view of the qualified nature of welfare rights, cases denying the defense of state immunity where plaintiffs property has been taken by the state without just compensation cannot be relied on as precedents controlling

Fitzpatrick v. Greater Portland Public Development Commission

495 A.2d 791 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Jul 11, 1985

It is likely that the Legislature sought to make doubly clear that the Commission, created in P. & S.L.1945, c. 123 as a “body corporate and politic,” was a State “instrumentality” qualified for priority under Section 13( … Whether or not it had done so before, the Legislature, by enacting P. & S.L.1947, c. 97, clearly affirmed that the Commission was such an agency.

State v. Atkinson

458 A.2d 1200 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Apr 11, 1983

Defendant contends that Sukeforth was not qualified to give such an opinion. Whether an expert is qualified to testify in the area addressed by his testimony is largely within the discretion of the trial justice. E.N. … Testimony at the trial established that the tractor was in good working condition at the time of the theft.

Roy v. Runyon

954 F. Supp. 368 · District Court, D. Maine · Jan 30, 1997

A defendant is entitled to dismissal for failure to state a claim “only if it clearly appears, according to the facts alleged, that the plaintiff cannot recover on any viable theory.” Correa-Martinez v. … Accordingly, it is not necessary to address the exclusivity and immunity issues raised in this regard by the defendant.

GLADU

District Court, D. Maine · Apr 15, 2026

Plaintiff’s claim is not clearly established, and Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity as to Count V. E. … The Court proceeds to the second prong of the qualified immunity analysis: whether the right was clearly established at the time of the retaliatory action. See City of Escondido, Cal. v.

Hurricane Island Outward Bound v. Town of Vinalhaven

372 A.2d 1043 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · May 3, 1977

The burden of establishing tax exemption is upon the plaintiff. Exemption is a special favor conferred. … Science is not its only primary object and hence it is not entitled to enjoy immunity within 36 M.R.S.A. § 652(1)(B) from the tax imposed. The result reached by the Court below is erroneous as a matter of law. II.

Goodman v. President and Trustees of Bowdoin Coll.

135 F. Supp. 2d 40 · District Court, D. Maine · Mar 16, 2001

This limitation is particularly significant in light of the Leatherman and Crawford-El Courts’ specific emphasis on the qualified immunity defense. … The Leatherman Court left open the narrow question of whether the Court’s qualified immunity jurisprudence “would require a heightened pleading in cases involving individual government officials.”

LePage v. Bath Iron Works Corp.

909 A.2d 629 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Nov 14, 2006

. § 4572(1)(A) (2005), was untimely; that he failed to establish a prima facie case of disability discrimination; and that he failed to establish a prima facie case of a Maine Whistleblowers’ Protection Act (MWPA), 26 M.R.S … The Whistleblower Claim [¶ 17] The court concluded that Le-Page had failed to establish a prima facie case under the MWPA “because the only adverse employment action was BIW’s continued refusal to qualify LePage to carry

Davies v. City of Bath

364 A.2d 1269 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Nov 30, 1976

Justice Traynor disposed of the same argument on the occasion of the abolition of governmental immunity in California: “We are not here faced with a situation in which the Legislature has adopted an established judicial interpretation … Ryder, supra, although we were critical of the doctrine, we stated clearly that the Legislature was the appropriate forum for the resolution of such crucial policy issues.