Case law

Hiam v. HomeAway.com, Inc.

267 F. Supp. 3d 338 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jul 27, 2017

Despite these renunciations, Hiam believes HomeAway qualifies as a seller of travel services. … The first four words of the Basic Rental Guarantee establish what HomeAway, the “guarantor”, undertakes to do: reimburse qualifying users. Id. at 4 . The language of the Guarantee is clear and unambiguous.

Carapellucci v. Town of Winchester

707 F. Supp. 611 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Feb 3, 1989

Qualified Immunity Defendants have also moved for summary judgment on the ground that they are entitled to official immunity because it was not clearly established at the time their actions were taken that the actions violated … The Town of Winchester has also moved for summary judgment on this added ground, contending that it too is entitled to a qualified immunity.

Boyle v. Barnstable Police Department

818 F. Supp. 2d 284 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Sep 22, 2011

Qualified immunity protects police officers such as Caido and Morse “ ‘from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … Determining entitlement to qualified immunity entails determining: “(1) whether the facts alleged or shown by the Plaintiff make out a violation of a constitutional right; and (2) if so, whether the right was clearly established

Holloman v. Clarke

236 F. Supp. 3d 493 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Feb 23, 2017

Prosecutorial Immunity Prosecutors are afforded two kinds of immunity in suits brought under 28 U.S.C. § 1983 : absolute and qualified. Kalina v. Fletcher, 522 U.S. 118, 118 , 118 S.Ct. 502 , 139 L.Ed.2d 471 (1997). … The burden is on the defendant to establish which, if either, immunity applies. Buckley v. Fitzsimmons, 509 U.S. 259, 269 , 113 S.Ct. 2606 , 125 L.Ed.2d 209 (1993).

ROBIN LANG v. JOHN BARRY, M.D.

Massachusetts Superior Court · Mar 24, 2025

This statute grants members of staff committees immunity against civil suits for their activities taken in conjunction with their role on peer review committees. … Clearly, the Supreme Court’s pronouncement of judicial restraint in Nixon militates against this court’s embracing a peer review committee privilege.

Sabree v. Conley

62 Mass. App. Ct. 901 · Massachusetts Appeals Court · Sep 27, 2004

. § 1983 (2000), the defense of qualified immunity invokes a three-part inquiry: “first, whether a constitutional violation has been alleged if plaintifffs] allegations are established as true; second, whether the law was … clearly established at the time of the alleged violation; and last, whether a reasonable official, similarly situated would understand that the challenged conduct violated a constitutional norm.”

Cole v. Snow

586 F. Supp. 655 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · May 9, 1984

were entitled to a “qualified immunity” defense. … Assuming that the issue of subjective knowledge is still a part of the qualified immunity defense, this court finds that the evidence did not establish that Snow knew that his actions violated clearly established constitutional

Comeau v. Town of Webster

881 F. Supp. 2d 177 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jul 24, 2012

Defendant Purcell seeks cover under the doctrine of qualified immunity. Qualified immunity shields public officials from suit, and is not a mere defense to liability. Mitchell v. … Likewise, it may be that Purcell performed his duties reasonably and is granted qualified immunity.

Klaucke v. Daly

592 F. Supp. 2d 222 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jan 13, 2009

Even assuming that the actions of Defendant in some way violated Plaintiffs Constitutional rights (which they did not), Defendant would be entitled to qualified immunity. … Put differently, the “rights” Plaintiff attempts to invoke in this lawsuit certainly were not clearly established as of the date of the incident. Saucier v.

Massachusetts Council of Construction Employers, Inc. v. Mayor of Boston

384 Mass. 466 · Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · Aug 28, 1981

There seems little dispute that a qualified resident of the Commonwealth, if available, must be hired for any job covered by § 26. … Does the Executive Order, by establishing a residents’ preference, conflict with the privileges and immunities clause, the due process clause, the equal protection clause, the contract clause and the commerce clause of the

Barron v. Kolenda

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · Mar 7, 2023

There is also no qualified immunity, as there is a clearly established State constitutional right under arts. 16 and 19 to object (and even to do so vigorously) to the violation of the law by government officials in a … Thus, there is no basis for qualified immunity. Conclusion.

Mulford v. Mangano

418 Mass. 407 · Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · Jul 19, 1994

First we state that the coemployee immunity rule under G. … The point was presented less clearly in the plaintiffs original appellate brief. The Appeals Court opinion does not analyze the point but cor *410 rectly applies the rule we now expressly recognize. See Mulford v.

Thyng v. City of Quincy

32 Mass. L. Rptr. 215 · Massachusetts Superior Court · Jun 2, 2014

qualified immunity standard. … The law of qualified immunity says that the defendants do not enjoy qualified immunity for any conduct that violated Thyng’s “clearly established” rights.

Candela Corp. v. Regents of the University of California

976 F. Supp. 90 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Sep 25, 1997

Standing alone, such a “qualified removal” might not rise to the level of an “unequivocal” waiver of immunity. … By removing the action, answering the complaint, counterclaiming, and opposing a motion to remand on immunity grounds, the Regents has clearly and un *93 equivocally waived its Eleventh Amendment immunity to suit in the present

Felton v. Lincoln

429 F. Supp. 2d 226 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Mar 17, 2006

Qualified Immunity Finally, the defendants have each moved for summary judgment on the grounds of qualified immunity. … Qualified immunity shields government officials performing discretionary functions from liability for civil damages when “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable

Miller v. Roycroft

District Court, D. Massachusetts · Mar 31, 2024

Qualified Immunity The doctrine of qualified immunity shields government officials from liability for civil damages if their conduct “does not violate clearly established … Clearly Established Right The Court now turns to the clearly established prong of qualified immunity.

Lopez v. Commonwealth

463 Mass. 696 · Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · Nov 9, 2012

In previous cases considering waiver of sovereign immunity under G. … L. c. 151B waives sovereign immunity).

Patrick Laselva v. City of Boston

Massachusetts Superior Court · Sep 20, 2021

To establish tort immunity under Section 17C, therefore, the Defendant must demonstrate each of four specific things: -8- (1) That the City owns the land on which the Plaintiff’s injury occurred; (2) That the Plaintiff was … The City Engaged in No Conduct That Was Wilful, Wanton or Reckless The summary judgment record demonstrating that the City qualifies for the tort immunity conferred by the Recreational Use Statute, the Plaintiff’s claims

Wheeler v. Boston Housing Authority

34 Mass. App. Ct. 36 · Massachusetts Appeals Court · Jan 25, 1993

L. c. 258, § 10(6), if the defendant’s conduct in this case qualifies as a discretionary function. Commesso v. Hingham Hous. Authy., 399 Mass. 805, 807 (1987). Ayala v. Boston Hous. … the lights at night — actions which were ruled to be clearly discretionary under the Federal Tort Claims Act); Marbley v.

O'Connor v. Spain

84 F. Supp. 3d 60 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Feb 5, 2015

Even assuming a constitutional violation, however, Defendant is entitled to qualified immunity and therefore the Court will enter summary judgment on Count II. 3 Qualified immunity provides *66 public officials “breathing … To overcome a public official’s qualified immunity defense in a § 1983 suit, a plaintiff must show that the violation of her constitutional right was “clearly established” at the time of the violation.