Case law

Martineau v. Kurland

36 F. Supp. 2d 39 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Feb 8, 1999

Immunity The Court of Appeals for the First Circuit has endorsed a two-prong test to evaluate a defense of qualified immunity. … established law.

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

Cryer v. Massachusetts Department of Correction

763 F. Supp. 2d 237 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jan 7, 2011

“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 … “The qualified immunity analysis has two parts.

Howe v. Bank for International Settlements

194 F. Supp. 2d 6 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Mar 26, 2002

This immunity shields “govern *22 ment officials performing discretionary-functions ... from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of … Moreover, even if the plaintiff could maintain an individual-capacity suit for damages, Greenspan and McDonough would be protected by their qualified immunity, “as their conduct [on the BIS board] d[id] not violate any clearly

Lemieux v. City of Holyoke

740 F. Supp. 2d 246 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Sep 28, 2010

Here, the uncontested record clearly supports Defendants’ assertion that Plaintiffs were subject to a qualifying eight-day work period at all relevant times. … The decision contained no discussion of the broader doctrine of municipal immunity well established in Massachusetts law.

Acevedo v. Musterfield Place, LLC

479 Mass. 705 · Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · Jun 8, 2018

The judge denied the motion, concluding that the act "clearly defines the scope of a public employer," and did not include controlled affiliates within that definition. … Worcester , 464 Mass. 261 , 266, 982 N.E.2d 516 (2013) ("The act was passed in 1978 in response to 'the Legislature's desire to abolish "sovereign immunity and the crazy quilt of exceptions to sovereign immunity ... which

Commonwealth v. Vargas

475 Mass. 86 · Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · Aug 3, 2016

In this appeal, we are asked to decide whether the medical marijuana law, St. 2012, c. 369 (act),2 establishing immunity for the medical use of marijuana, applies in a probation surrender proceeding based on the use of … Immunity.

Howe v. Town of North Andover

854 F. Supp. 2d 131 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Apr 11, 2012

The judicially en-grafted 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. … In the unlikely event that a constitutional violation could be proved against either of them, qualified immunity would shield them from liability.

Salcedo v. Town of Dudley

629 F. Supp. 2d 86 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Mar 20, 2009

The qualified-immunity doctrine shields public officials from liability for civil rights violations so long as “their *103 conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … The qualified-immunity analysis consists of the following three inquiries: (1) "whether the plaintiff’s allegations, if true, establish a constitutional violation;” (2) "whether the constitutional right at issue was clearly

Estate of Gilmore v. Buckley

608 F. Supp. 554 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · May 10, 1985

At a minimum, no such duty was clearly established at the time of the incidents in this case, and thus the Bridgewater defendants are immune from liability for civil damages. 12 See Harlow v. … The court found that the defendants were entitled to qualified immunity because the duty of protection was not clearly established at the time of the alleged wrongdoing. Id.

Ziskend v. O'LEARY

79 F. Supp. 2d 10 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jan 10, 2000

For his part, O’Leary argues that under controlling First Circuit precedent he is entitled to qualified immunity. See Harlow v. … Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 , 102 S.Ct. 2727 , 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982) (affording qualified immunity to government officials whose conduct did not violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a

Johnson v. Town of Nantucket

550 F. Supp. 2d 179 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Apr 7, 2008

Qualified Immunity The Supreme Court and the First Circuit Court of Appeals have set forth a preferred procedure for the analysis of qualified immunity in § 1983 claims. *184 First, the Court must ask whether the plaintiff … Second, the Court must determine whether the right was “clearly established at the time of the alleged violation”. Abrew-Guzman, 241 F.3d at 73 .

Perry v. Dickhaut

125 F. Supp. 3d 285 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Aug 27, 2015

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 would have … Therefore, to overcome qualified immunity, Plaintiffs rights must have been “clearly established” at the time of the violation.

Ali v. DuBois

6 Mass. L. Rptr. 32 · Massachusetts Superior Court · Sep 24, 1996

I assume, under RFRA, state actors sued in their individual capacities are protected by a “qualified immunity” from suit if their actions (1) were discretionary and (2) did not violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional … However, despite the discretionary nature of their actions, defendants do not enjoy qualified immunity, because the right violated by their decision to exclude Ali was, at the time of the RFRA violations, “clearly established

Limone v. United States

271 F. Supp. 2d 345 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jul 17, 2003

Qualiñed Immunity Defendants Condon, Rico, and Walsh argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity, which shields government officials “from liability for civil damages if their actions did not violate ‘clearly established … Put another way, the qualified immunity issue as it is raised by the defendants does not require me to resolve any legal dispute about the contours of relevant “clearly established law.”

LeBeau v. Town of Spencer

167 F. Supp. 2d 449 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Oct 2, 2001

Qualified Immunity The defendants argue, in the alternative, that the plaintiffs § 1983 claims must fail because the selectmen are entitled to qualified immunity. … The doctrine of qualified immunity shields government officials performing discretionary functions from liability for civil damages as long as their conduct does not violate clearly established federal statutory or constitutional

Plummer v. Town of Somerset

601 F. Supp. 2d 358 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Mar 9, 2009

Qualified immunity attaches to discretionary conduct of government officials that “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. … Consequently, the school defendants were granted qualified immunity. That remained the state of the law in 2005.

Crenshaw v. Town of Southborough

District Court, D. Massachusetts · Mar 29, 2018

The First Circuit applies the following two-part test to determine if qualified immunity applies: (1) whether the plaintiff has made out a violation of a constitutional right; and (2) whether that right was “clearly established … Therefore, even assuming that Chief Moran’s conduct was a violation of Crenshaw’s rights, absent a showing that such a violation was clearly established at the time that Chief Moran acted, she is entitled to qualified immunity

Bazinet v. Thorpe

190 F. Supp. 3d 229 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jun 3, 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

Ringuette v. City of Fall River

888 F. Supp. 258 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · May 12, 1995

Qualified Immunity The main contention of the individual defendants is that they are entitled to qualified immunity. … The format of inquiry must take is well-defined: Qualified immunity shields government official performing discretionary functions from civil damages “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory