Case law

Oliver v. Mills

93 Mass. 268 · Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · Nov 15, 1865

It is clearly, therefore, a tax or excise on the income or dividends of stockholders only, and is not intended to be a corporate charge. … By exempting its own citizens from a tax or excise to which citizens of other states were subject, the former would enjoy an immunity of which the latter would be deprived.

Bellin v. Kelley

435 Mass. 261 · Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · Oct 11, 2001

For access under clause (c), the criminal history systems board (established by G. … Stewart, 422 Mass. 385, 389 (1996) (admissibility of polygraph evidence could be established if there were evidence of its reliability).

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).

Cignetti v. Healy

89 F. Supp. 2d 106 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Mar 21, 2000

Prosecutors enjoy only qualified immunity from § 1983 liability as to their non-prosecu-torial activities. … Qualified immunity operates to shield government officials exercising discretionary powers from § 1983 liability "insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a

Namey v. Reilly

926 F. Supp. 5 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Apr 24, 1996

In light of Namey’s plea to the amended charge of possession, the first ground cited by Perry was clearly incorrect. … Metallo, 5 F.3d 583, 585 (1st Cir.1993) (parole officer received qualified immunity with respect to claim of unreasonable search); Galvan v.

McLarnon v. Massachusetts General Hospital

14 Mass. L. Rptr. 203 · Massachusetts Superior Court · Oct 9, 2001

Similarly, court ordered payments to experts do not establish relationships that interfere with grants of judicial immunity. LaLonde at 212 , n.9. … Therefore, McLarnon can not be considered as one clearly and definitely intended to benefit from the relationship between the defendants and the court. 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.

Hall v. Ochs

623 F. Supp. 367 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Nov 27, 1985

Farrell, at 6 *374 (“The district court erred when it stated ‘the issue of qualified immunity is almost universally one which presents a question of fact to be determined by the trier of fact.’ ... … “Factual disputes will result in denial of summary judgment” and in submission of the case to the jury “when they are relevant to the qualified immunity defense----” Floyd , at 6.

Philbrook v. Perrigo

637 F. Supp. 2d 48 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jul 14, 2009

Qualified Immunity The defendants contend that, regardless of whether they violated rights protected under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 , qualified immunity shields them from any liability. … Qualified immunity exists where 1) the plaintiffs allegations make out a violation of a constitutionally protected right, 2) the right was clearly established at the time of the putative violation and 3) a reasonable public

Levine v. Clement

333 F. Supp. 2d 1 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Sep 1, 2004

Qualified Immunity Of all the issues raised by Plaintiff in his motion for partial summary judgment, qualified immunity is the only one Defendant addresses. … Defendant simply maintained that she is qualifiedly immune from suit. *6 Defendant’s assertion to the contrary, the court concludes that qualified immunity does not apply.- To determine whether qualified immunity is available

Thomas v. Town of Chelmsford

267 F. Supp. 3d 279 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jul 25, 2017

Qualified Immunity The individual defendants have asserted that they are protected by the doctrine of qualified immunity, “[T]he qualified immunity inquiry is a two-part test. … In recent years, the Supreme Court has published a.number of.per cu-riam reversals of denials of qualified immunity, emphasizing that “clearly established law” should not be defined “at a high level of generality.”

Mihos v. Swift

235 F. Supp. 2d 45 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Dec 17, 2002

complains violated clearly established law. … The standard for deciding issues concerning a public official’s qualified immunity ordinarily turns on whether the right in question “was clearly established when the harm-inducing conduct allegedly took place.”

Mattei v. Dunbar

217 F. Supp. 3d 367 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Nov 8, 2016

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity protects government officials from liability for money damages only if the conduct at issue “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … The qualified immunity inquiry is a two-part test: a court must decide, first, whether the facts alleged show that the officer violated a right and, second, whether the right was “clearly established” at the time of the alleged

SKANDHA v. Savoie

811 F. Supp. 2d 535 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Aug 18, 2011

Qualified Immunity Defendants assert that they are entitled to qualified immunity and therefore should not be subjected to charges of cruel and unusual punishment. … The Court concludes that defendants are not shielded by qualified immunity. The law regarding whether a low cell temperature can constitute an Eighth Amendment violation is clearly established.

City of Worcester v. HCA Management Co., Inc.

753 F. Supp. 31 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Nov 26, 1990

Qualified, rather than absolute, immunity applies when a federal employee violates an established constitutional rule, unless "absolute immunity is essential for the conduct of public business.” Butz v. … As the complaint in this case does not allege intentional misconduct by Blue Cross, this Court will not delve into the specific situations in which qualified immunity, instead of absolute immunity, will apply to the actions

Mussey v. Bulfinch Street Society

55 Mass. 148 · Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · Mar 15, 1848

We are therefore clearly of opinion, that the society had the right to tax the pews; and this right, although not expressly given, is conferred by necessary implication. … Whereas they have clearly the right to let or sell the pews, on the condition that the lessee or grantee shall pay a certain sum yearly, or to pay taxes if lawfully assessed.

Brum v. Town of Dartmouth

44 Mass. App. Ct. 318 · Massachusetts Appeals Court · Feb 25, 1998

Pla, 748 F. *328 Supp. 56, 59-61 (D.P.R. 1990) (involving a claim by a parent whose son was shot to death by another student during class); and (d) the defendants would be entitled to qualified immunity from § 1983 liability … in light of the existing state of the law as it applied to school situations, since it did not clearly establish a student’ s constitutional right to be free from attack by private parties during the school day.

Howcroft v. City of Peabody

51 Mass. App. Ct. 573 · Massachusetts Appeals Court · May 17, 2001

Qualified Immunity. The defendants argue that each one is entitled to the defense of qualified immunity from both the § 1983 and MCRA claims. … discretionary act, the constitutional or statutory right allegedly infringed was not ‘clearly established.’ ” Laubinger v.

Tye v. Finkelstein

160 F. Supp. 666 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Mar 27, 1958

Clearly the fact that the defendant is an officer of the corporation does not immunize him from liability. McGurk v. Cronenwett, 199 Mass. 457 , 85 N.E. 576 , 19 L.R.A.,N.S., 561. … A person was has a duty to act must be protected initially by a qualified privilege.

National Bank of Fairhaven v. United States

660 F. Supp. 125 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Mar 16, 1987

Individual federal employees possess qualified immunity from law suits for their actions taken in the course of their official duties. Fernandez v. Leonard, 784 F.2d 1209, 1214 (1st Cir.1986). … Finally, the Bank has not shown that any “clearly established” Due Process rights were violated. Consequently, Mr. Brooks is protected by qualified immunity.