Case law

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.”

Barrett v. Brooks Hospital, Inc.

338 Mass. 754 · Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · Apr 3, 1959

the defence of charitable immunity. … The doctrine of charitable immunity was rejected in President & Directors of Georgetown College v. Hughes, 130 F. 2d 810 (Ct. App. D. C.). 2 The plaintiff did not testify on the issue of charitable immunity. 1 R.

Wiesman v. Hill

629 F. Supp. 2d 106 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Mar 24, 2009

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 … Accordingly, the Court will not dismiss the complaint based on the doctrine of qualified immunity at this stage of the proceeding.

Holloman v. Clarke

208 F. Supp. 3d 373 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Sep 22, 2016

In determining whether Ferrarra and Maine are entitled to qualified immunity, this Court must consider whether Holloman has alleged a violation of a constitutional right and whether that right was “clearly established” at … Because Holloman has alleged a constitutional violation that was clearly established at the time of the alleged conduct of Ferrarra and Maine, they are not entitled to qualified immunity. 2.

STEFANIK v. Reno

538 F. Supp. 2d 437 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Mar 13, 2008

“Government 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 statutory … In other words, the court believes that it is clear beyond peradventure of doubt that, for qualified immunity purposes, Defendants’ conduct did not constitute a violation of any clearly established constitutional right.

Chao v. Ballista

630 F. Supp. 2d 170 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jul 1, 2009

Qualified Immunity Finally, the Defendants claim that qualified immunity requires dismissal of Chao’s suit. … It is clearly established that the sexual exploitation of prisoners by prison guards or officials amounts to a constitutional violation. See Schwenk v.

Bates v. Director of the Office of Campaign & Political Finance

436 Mass. 144 · Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · Feb 25, 2002

The certification process begins during a “[qualifying period.” … For the 2002 elections, the qualifying period for party-affiliated political candidates for Statewide office is August 1, 2001, to June 4, 2002; the qualifying period for unenrolled candidates for Statewide office is August

LaRossa v. Dupont

6 Mass. L. Rptr. 694 · Massachusetts Superior Court · May 13, 1997

Qualified Immunity The next inquiry is whether the officers are entitled to qualified immunity from LaRossa’s civil rights claims. In Duarte v. … The doctrine of qualified immunity clearly applies to law enforcement officials, LaRossa v. Dupont, No. 94-40057-NMG (D.Mass. March 1996) at 10, citing Hunter v. Bryant, 502 U.S. 224 (1991), Anderson v.

Bates v. MacKay

321 F. Supp. 2d 173 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jun 10, 2004

Qualified Immunity Defendant MacKay argues that he is entitled to qualified immunity from damages. … Government officials are entitled to qualified immunity “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v.

Scrima v. Gay

322 F. Supp. 2d 49 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jun 21, 2004

Because plaintiffs allegations describe the violation of a clearly established constitutional right that a reasonable City official would understand, the defense of qualified immunity is not available. … In a footnote defendants argue that a wrongful termination claim does not lie against an individual and would be barred by qualified immunity even if it did.

Pineiro v. Gemme

937 F. Supp. 2d 161 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Mar 26, 2013

Qualiñed Immunity 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 … The qualified-immunity analysis employs a two-part test: (1) whether the facts alleged or shown by the plaintiff make out a violation of a constitutional right, and (2) whether the right at issue was clearly established at

Morrissey v. Town of Agawam

883 F. Supp. 2d 300 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jul 12, 2012

The qualified immunity inquiry comprises a two part test. … qualified immunity.”

Feliciano v. DuBois

846 F. Supp. 1033 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Feb 10, 1994

immunity. … Fenton, 891 F.2d 373 , 386 n. 10 (1st Cir.1989) (noting that rules of qualified immunity apply to the Massachusetts Civil Rights Act).

Lockhart-Bembery v. Town of Wayland Police Department

404 F. Supp. 2d 373 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Dec 7, 2005

Defendants offered eight affirmative defenses ranging from failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted to qualified immunity. The case was removed by the defendants to this Court on March 24, 2004. … Qualified Immunity In § 1983 actions, the defense of qualified immunity shields a government official performing discretionary functions from civil damages “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory

Goddard v. Kelley

629 F. Supp. 2d 115 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Mar 31, 2009

Qualiñed Immunity Defendants contend that even if they behaved inappropriately, they are nonetheless protected from liability on the § 1983 claims by the doctrine of qualified immunity. 19 The qualified-immunity doctrine … Laws ch. 272, § 36A is unconstitutional because it clearly violates the First Amendment. Defendants do not defend the statute, but instead respond with a qualified immunity defense.

Cichocki v. Massachusetts Bay Community College

199 F. Supp. 3d 431 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Aug 8, 2016

As detailed herein, it is well-established that enactment of the MTCA does not constitute a waiver of immunity, and, therefore, the motion to dismiss will be allowed as to Counts I and II. … Assuming, arguendo, that as the plaintiffs contend the defendants are being sued in their individual capacities, they may be entitled to qualified immunity. However, the defendants do not address this issue.

Ford v. City of Boston

154 F. Supp. 2d 131 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jul 31, 2001

The Supreme Court established the standard for qualified immunity 32 two decades ago, in Harlow v. … I therefore find that Sheriff Rouse has established the defense of qualified immunity for those searches.

Shedlock v. Department of Correction

15 Mass. L. Rptr. 357 · Massachusetts Superior Court · Oct 3, 2002

The Court added, “The word ‘substantial’ thus clearly precludes impairments that interfere in only a minor way with the performance of [a major life activity] from qualifying as disabilities.” Id. … Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, the correctional officers are “shielded from liability from civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or con *364 stitutional rights of

Coyne v. United States

270 F. Supp. 2d 104 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · May 30, 2003

Qualified Immunity Defense The qualified immunity defense shields government officials “from liability for civil damages if their actions did not violate ‘clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a … Thus, the qualified immunity defense is unavailing. I therefore conclude that SA Cronin’s motion to dismiss must be denied with respect to the Count III Bivens claims. E.

Bibbo v. Mulhern

621 F. Supp. 1018 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Nov 8, 1985

The Court of Appeals reversed, finding that the district court’s statement was in error, and holding that an officer’s “qualified immunity is pierced only if there clearly is no probable cause at the time the arrest was made … Borrowing from the language of Floyd , Officer Mulhern asserts that “the defense of qualified immunity is pierced only if there clearly were no grounds to act as the defendant did.”