Case law

Kent v. Commonwealth

437 Mass. 312 · Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · Jul 15, 2002

We must decide whether the parole board’s role in MacNeil’s freedom is enough to qualify as the original cause of the condition or situation that resulted in the shooting. We conclude that it is not. … Fanning, 345 Mass. 73, 76 (1962) (“when all facts are established and there can be no reasonable difference as to the effect of them, causation becomes a question of law”).

Henderson v. Commissioners of Barnstable

49 Mass. App. Ct. 455 · Massachusetts Appeals Court · Jun 20, 2000

. § 1983 , and denying the latters’ claims of qualified immunity. … . § 1983 , unless their conduct violates “clearly established” constitutional rights. Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 (1982). Anderson v.

North Shore Realty Trust v. Commonwealth

434 Mass. 109 · Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · May 14, 2001

qualify as “lots.” … L. c. 79, § 22, does not suggest that the Legislature intended a change from the established procedure of awarding costs against the Commonwealth in eminent domain cases.

Commonwealth v. Kindell

44 Mass. App. Ct. 200 · Massachusetts Appeals Court · Jan 26, 1998

It will be recalled that in cross-examining Clark, counsel for Kindell sought to establish that Clark harbored some ill will toward Kindell. … Instructions on immunized witness. Rice had testified under a grant of immunity. See G. L. c. 233, §§ 20C-20I.

Dean Tran v. Commonwealth

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · Sep 10, 2025

The defendant's briefing to the full court does not clearly articulate whether he continues to rely on the Federal clause for his claim of legislative immunity. … Breault, 485 U.S. 906 (1988) (order denying qualified immunity from suit brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 ); Abuzahra v. Cambridge, 101 Mass. App.

Brockton Power LLC v. City of Brockton

948 F. Supp. 2d 48 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · May 30, 2013

Qualified Immunity All moving defendants invoke the doctrine of qualified immunity. Doc. No. 55 at 5-6; Doc. No. 59 at 10-11; Doc. No. 61 at 10-11; Doc. No. 63 at 22-23; Doc. No. 65 at 3. … right,” and (2) “the right was ‘clearly established’ at the time of the alleged violation.”

C & M CONSTRUCTION CO. v. Commonwealth

396 Mass. 390 · Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · Dec 12, 1985

Since the present action is not founded on the contract between C & M and the Commonwealth, as to which sovereign immunity is waived, the question is whether there is any other source of waiver of sovereign immunity. … The primary statutory basis for the waiver of sovereign immunity is G. L. c. 258 (1984 ed.). As we have repeatedly held, “[t]he rules of construction governing statutory waivers of sovereign immunity are stringent.”

Estate of Usaamah Abdullah Rahim v. United States of America

District Court, D. Massachusetts · Dec 2, 2020

Clearly Established Rights This does not end the court’s analysis, however, as the doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials whose “conduct does not violate clearly … What the law does or does not clearly establish for purposes of assessing qualified immunity is a question of law. See Morse v. Cloutier, 869 F.3d 16, 22 (1st Cir. 2017).

Tarzia v. Town of Hingham

35 Mass. App. Ct. 506 · Massachusetts Appeals Court · Nov 22, 1993

of different methods of silt and vegetation removal, the effect of using the control gates presently in place or installing new ones, the impact of removal procedures on surrounding areas, the choice of the company most qualified … Here the pond whose overflow clearly contributed to the flooding of the plaintiffs’ land was artificially dammed at its northerly side and had control gates and sluices. 10 The town’s *512 land was not in its natural condition

Building Inspector & Zoning Officer v. Wampanoag Aquinnah Shellfish Hatchery Corp.

443 Mass. 1 · Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · Dec 9, 2004

Section 11(A)(3) of the bylaw establishes a coastal district by reference to a 1983 zoning map. … Here, the facts clearly establish a waiver of sovereign im *13 munity stated, in no uncertain terms, in a duly executed agreement, and the facts show that the Tribe bargained for, and knowingly agreed to, that waiver.

Limone v. United States

336 F. Supp. 2d 18 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Sep 17, 2004

Qualified and Absolute Immunity on all Bivens Claims.53 VII. … did not violate any Constitutional rights that were clearly established at the time of the alleged offenses.

In the Matter of Jadd

391 Mass. 227 · Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · Feb 21, 1984

The privileges and immunites clause, appearing at art. 4, § 2, cl. 1, of the Constitution of the United States, 4 ‘“establishes a norm of comity,’ . . . that is to prevail among the States with respect to their treatment … If we are willing to admit a qualified person on motion if he or she moves to Massachusetts, we have already concluded that passing a bar examination is not an essential means in assessing his or her knowledge of local law

Ciulla v. Rigny

89 F. Supp. 2d 97 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Mar 8, 2000

’s motion on the basis of qualified immunity. … A determination of qualified immunity does not prevent a party who otherwise prevailed from obtaining a fee award. See Pulliam v. Allen, 466 U.S. 522, 543-44 , 104 S.Ct. 1970 , 80 L.Ed.2d 565 (1984); Handy v.

Jergensen v. Massachusetts Historical Commission

33 Mass. L. Rptr. 615 · Massachusetts Superior Court · Nov 21, 2016

. §207 are barred, as a matter of law, by the principle of sovereign immunity. … Maine, 527 U.S. 706, 754 (1999) (“we hold that the States retain immunity from private suit in their own courts, an immunity beyond the congressional power to abrogate by Article I legislation”).

Najas Realty, LLC v. Seekonk Water District

68 F. Supp. 3d 246 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Dec 23, 2014

Since this court has determined that the plaintiffs have not established a violation of their constitutional rights, there is no need to address Bernardo's contention that he is entitled to qualified immunity from suit under … second being "whether the violated right was clearly established at the time that the offending conduct occurred.”).

Noyes v. Meharry

213 Mass. 598 · Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · Feb 25, 1913

It is not the spirit of the law of to-day to extend for the benefit of sellers the limits of immunity for false statements under the guise of trade talk. Mabardy v. McHugh, 202 Mass. 148 . … Upon this point the case is well within established principles and adjudications of this court. Thomson v. Pentecost, 206 Mass. 505, 511 . Townsend v. Niles, 210 Mass. 524, 530 .

Ken's Foods, Inc. v. Ken's Steak House, Inc.

213 F.R.D. 89 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Dec 11, 2002

“To qualify for the privilege, the communication must have been made in confidence.” Id. … , or the inadvertent failure to designate information as “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL” or “CONFIDENTIAL,” will not be deemed to constitute a waiver of such privilege, immunity, rights, or any other privilege, immunity, or rights

In Re Grand Jury Subpoena (Zerendow)

925 F. Supp. 849 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Oct 19, 1995

Some courts have afforded ordinary work product only a qualified immunity subject to a showing of sub *854 stantial need and undue hardship, while requiring a heavier showing to justify the production of opinion work product … Even under the more lenient standard of qualified protection, the government has not met its burden of establishing good cause for production of the testimony.

Irwin v. Commonwealth

465 Mass. 834 · Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · Jul 15, 2013

immunity at trial would vitiate such immunity, imposing on it the burden of proceeding to trial from which the doctrine of sovereign immunity affords it protection. … by the statutory language, it is nonetheless clearly limited only to those individuals who can establish their membership in a particular class.

Parker v. Lovejoy

3 Mass. 565 · Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · Nov 15, 1795

From the language of this article it very clearly appears to us, that no person, although qualified by his age and estate, can legally vote for governor, unless he be an inhabitant of some town, or of some corporation having … representative, but also by the name of towns, with the same powers, privileges and immunities, and under the same exception.