Case law

Webb v. Haas

665 A.2d 1005 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Oct 10, 1995

Haas contends that he is protected from the Webbs’ action by the doctrine of qualified immunity pursuant to 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 8 because he has not violated a clearly established right of the Webbs’. … Pursuant to 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

Struck v. Hackett

668 A.2d 411 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Nov 27, 1995

“Under the qualified immunity doctrine, government officials performing discretionary functions are immune from suit in actions brought pursuant to § 1983 ‘insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established constitutional … The application of the qualified immunity doctrine turns on the “objective legal reasonableness of the official’s action viewed in light of the ‘clearly established’ ” legal rules at the time the action was taken.

Burbank v. Davis

227 F. Supp. 2d 176 · District Court, D. Maine · Oct 23, 2002

The second question is whether the right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation. … Under the First Circuit’s three-part qualified immunity standard the “clearly established” element has two prongs: one, whether the right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation and, two, whether a reasonable

Mitchell v. Miller

56 F. Supp. 3d 57 · District Court, D. Maine · Sep 26, 2014

prong (whether the right was clearly established). … established law for purposes of qualified immunity.

Grendell v. Gillway

974 F. Supp. 46 · District Court, D. Maine · Jul 11, 1997

immunity and, consequently, the question of whether this right was clearly established at the time Gillway acted. … qualified immunity.

Dellairo v. Garland

222 F. Supp. 2d 86 · District Court, D. Maine · Sep 4, 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 … In other words, it is possible that Garland violated Dellairo’s clearly established constitutional rights but is immune from suit because it was objectively reasonable for him to do so because the unlawfulness of his actions

Marcello v. Maine

489 F. Supp. 2d 70 · District Court, D. Maine · Apr 6, 2007

The First Circuit’s three-step approach to qualified immunity claims asks: (I) whether the claimant has alleged the deprivation of an actual constitutional right; (2) whether the right was clearly established at the time … The second step of the qualified immunity analysis “deals with fair warning; it asks whether the law was clearly established at the time of the constitutional violation.”

Munjoy Sporting & Athletic Club v. Dow

2000 Me. 141 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Jul 21, 2000

“A public official claiming qualified immunity ... must establish either that he or she did not -violate the plaintiffs rights or that given the state of the law a reasonable official would not have understood that he [or … A right is clearly established if “the contours of the right [are] sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates that- right.

Lord v. Murphy

561 A.2d 1013 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Jul 12, 1989

The defendants by their answer asserted, inter alia, the defense of absolute immunity or, in the alternative, qualified immunity. … In Mitchell , the Supreme Court held that qualified immunity, similar to absolute immunity, is an entitlement of “an immunity from suit rather than a mere defense to liability; and like an absolute immunity, it is effectively

Ferris v. County of Kennebec

44 F. Supp. 2d 62 · District Court, D. Maine · Mar 5, 1999

Failure to State a Claim and Qualified Immunity 1. … Qualified Immunity Sprowl’s contention that her, liability is precluded by qualified immunity is similarly unpersuasive.

Barber v. Guay

910 F. Supp. 790 · District Court, D. Maine · Nov 9, 1995

To overcome qualified immunity, a plaintiff must first allege a violation of a clearly established constitutional right. Id. … Second, if the right is clearly established, qualified immunity will only be denied if a reasonable official should have known that the challenged conduct violated that established right.

McLain v. Milligan

847 F. Supp. 970 · District Court, D. Maine · Feb 15, 1994

The relevant inquiry for assessing whether Defendant is entitled to qualified immunity is “whether a reasonable officer could have believed” that Defendant’s actions were lawful “in light of clearly established law and the … This Court has delineated a two-step analysis for assessing a claim of qualified immunity: First, the court must consider the more general question of whether the law establishing the right allegedly violated was ‘clearly

Searle v. Town of Bucksport

3 A.3d 390 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Aug 31, 2010

The immunity exceptions are strictly construed so as to adhere to immunity as the general rule. Sanford v. … The remaining issue is whether they qualify as an appurtenance to a public building. 1.

Comfort v. Town of Pittsfield

924 F. Supp. 1219 · District Court, D. Maine · Apr 12, 1996

To overcome qualified immunity, a plaintiff must first allege the violation of a clearly established constitutional or statutory right. Id. … The qualified immunity inquiry begins, as always, with the alleged clearly established rights at issue. Here too the inquiry ends.

Grossman v. Richards

722 A.2d 371 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Jan 13, 1999

P. 56(b) on the ground that no genuine issue of material fact existed and Grossman failed to establish the elements of his claims. … Madura, 474 A.2d 166 (Me.1984), can be read to suggest that only a qualified immunity was intended, it is incorrect.

Manzer v. TOWN OF ANSON

771 F. Supp. 2d 121 · District Court, D. Maine · Mar 23, 2011

The Plaintiffs then argue that the second element of the qualified immunity test — whether their rights were clearly established — is met. Id. at 12-13. … The Barton Court, in its own qualified immunity analysis, held that in 2006 and 2007, it was clearly established that a campaign of harassment could support a First Amendment retaliation claim if the harassment would deter

McPherson v. Auger

842 F. Supp. 25 · District Court, D. Maine · Jan 6, 1994

Creighton, 483 U.S. 635, 641 , 107 S.Ct. 3034, 3039 , 97 L.Ed.2d 523 (establishing the standard for assessing whether an officer is shielded from civil liability suits by qualified immunity). … Hence, Defendant Auger is protected by qualified immunity from Plaintiffs civil damages suit.

McDermott v. Town of Windham

204 F. Supp. 2d 54 · District Court, D. Maine · May 31, 2002

Defendant Cox: Qualified Immunity The Supreme Court has held that government officials performing discretionary functions are generally shielded from civil damages so long as their conduct “does not violate clearly established … Under qualified immunity, “Public officials who stand accused of civil rights violations under section 1983 nonetheless can-avoid liability... by showing either that they did not violate a right clearly established under

Cox v. Maine State Police

324 F. Supp. 2d 128 · District Court, D. Maine · May 27, 2004

The crux of the defendants’ objection is the third component of qualified immunity: whether an objectively reasonable officer would have understood that the arrest violated Cox’s clearly established constitutional right to … in the qualified immunity analysis.

Logiodice v. Trustees of Maine Central Institute

135 F. Supp. 2d 199 · District Court, D. Maine · Mar 5, 2001

to dismissal based on qualified immunity. … are entitled to qualified immunity.