Case law

Morales's Case

69 Mass. App. Ct. 424 · Massachusetts Appeals Court · Jun 25, 2007

The fund, established pursuant to G. … General Laws c. 152, § 37, provides that an insurer may obtain partial compensation from the fund for payments made to qualifying employees.

Cachopa v. Town of Stoughton

72 Mass. App. Ct. 657 · Massachusetts Appeals Court · Sep 15, 2008

Qualified immunity. We reject the defendants’ argument that the qualified immunity standard for civil rights actions applies to this action in tort. See, e.g., Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 (1982); Duarte v. … A showing that the defendants acted with actual malice would thus also defeat their claim of qualified immunity. See Tobin v. Goggins, 17 Mass. App.

Johnson ex rel. Estate of Johnson v. Cooke

15 Mass. L. Rptr. 717 · Massachusetts Superior Court · Jan 22, 2003

immunity. … The critical factor in determining whether the physician is an employee for the purposes of qualified immunity, is “whether a person is subject to the direction and control of a public employer.” Smith v.

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

Lockhart-Bembery v. Town of Wayland Police Department

447 F. Supp. 2d 11 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jul 11, 2006

Under 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 statutory … A defendant is entitled to qualified immunity unless: 1) the plaintiffs allegations, if true, establish a constitutional violation, 2) the right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation and 3) a similarly

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

Maraj v. Massachusetts

836 F. Supp. 2d 17 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Dec 13, 2011

immunity, which “protects government officials from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights....” 61 The relevant inquiry here, then, is … In Pearson , the Supreme Court grappled with a previously established two-step approach to determine whether qualified immunity bars suit.

Bannister v. Ponte

609 F. Supp. 920 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · May 30, 1985

The defendants also argue that they are entitled to qualified good faith immunity. See Procunier v. Navarette, 434 U.S. 555, 561 , 98 S.Ct. 855, 859 , 55 L.Ed.2d 24 (1978); Harlow v. … Johnson, 690 F.2d 1098, 1109 (4th Cir.1982) (a prison disciplinary board qualifies for absolute immunity only where the action complained of is of a judicial character).

Bowler v. Town of Hudson

514 F. Supp. 2d 168 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Oct 4, 2007

Qualified Immunity Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, public officials “performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established … An official is entitled to qualified immunity unless (1) “the plaintiffs’ allegations, if true, establish a constitutional violation,” (2) “the right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation,” and (3)

Ahearn v. Vose

9 Mass. L. Rptr. 518 · Massachusetts Superior Court · Feb 15, 1999

Qualified Immunity Public officials are entitled to immunity from suit under §1983 if, in performing a discretionary act, they infringe upon a right not “clearly established.” See Matthews v. … Clearly Established Right The defendants are also not entitled to qualified immunity because, if the repulsive conditions alleged are proven true, the defendants reasonably should have known that their failure to take corrective

SUSAN GALLAGHER v. SOUTH SHORE HOSPITAL, INC., & others.

101 Mass. App. Ct. 807 · Massachusetts Appeals Court · Oct 6, 2022

was 'clearly established' at the time of [the] defendant's alleged misconduct.'" … We conclude that the law of entry into the home based on exigent circumstances was clearly established for purposes of qualified immunity and that genuine issues of material fact exist regarding the alleged violation of the

Gavrilles v. O'Connor

599 F. Supp. 357 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Dec 28, 1984

The individual defendants base their motion on a claim that, as government officials performing discretionary functions, they have a qualified immunity which shields them from liability for civil damages because their conduct … did not clearly violate established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.

Howe v. Town of North Andover

784 F. Supp. 2d 24 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Mar 23, 2011

Because “it is not always possible to determine before any discovery has occurred whether a defendant is entitled to qualified immunity, [] courts often evaluate qualified immunity defenses at the summary judgment stage.” … An official is entitled to qualified immunity unless: 1) the facts that plaintiffs have alleged or shown make out a violation of a constitutional right and 2) the right at issue was “clearly established” at the time of the

Turkowitz v. Town of Provincetown

914 F. Supp. 2d 62 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Oct 26, 2012

The judicially engrafted doctrine of qualified immunity shields police officers from § 1983 liability if the constitutional right at issue was not “clearly established” at the time of the alleged violation. … Because this right has not been clearly established, defendants are entitled to qualified immunity on his claim. Plaintiff Richardson’s claim stands on different footing.

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.

Baron v. Hickey

242 F. Supp. 2d 66 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jan 31, 2003

Sheriff Rouse’s Qualified Immunity Defendant Rouse claims that he is entitled to summary judgment because he enjoys qualified immunity from suit against plaintiffs § 1983 claims. … “Qualified immunity shields government officials performing discretionary functions from civil damages ‘insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable

Cantell v. Commissioner of Correction

475 Mass. 745 · Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · Oct 21, 2016

. § 1983 (§ 1983), rejecting the defendants' argument that they were entitled to qualified immunity as a matter of law. LaChance I, supra. … As mentioned, LaChance I was an interlocutory appeal of a decision denying the defendants' claim of qualified immunity from liability for damages under § 1983.

Rectrix Aerodome Centers, Inc. v. Barnstable Municipal Airport Commission

534 F. Supp. 2d 201 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Feb 15, 2008

Clearly Articulated Policy To determine whether state action immunity applies, the court must first consider whether the Airport’s enabling legislation sets forth a clearly articulated policy of displacing competition. … established and enforced by the FAA.

Chao v. Ballista

806 F. Supp. 2d 358 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jul 28, 2011

Ryan, however, claims that she is entitled to qualified immunity because, at the time of the events in question, it was not “clearly established” that her conduct was unlawful. … Because the constitutional right to protection was clearly established both generally and as applied to these facts, Ryan is not entitled to qualified immunity. IY.

Goodhile v. Gribbons

186 F. Supp. 3d 4 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · May 16, 2016

Qualified immunity protects police officers “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. … Courts use a two-part test to determine whether qualified immunity applies: (1) whether the facts alleged by the plaintiff make out a violation of a constitutional right; and, if so (2) whether the right was clearly established