Case law

Perkins v. City of Attleboro

969 F. Supp. 2d 158 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Sep 17, 2013

“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 … be entitled to qualified immunity.

McDonough v. Whalen

365 Mass. 506 · Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · Jun 24, 1974

We do not agree that the immunity applies to everything Whalen did in this case. It does not appear from art. … for no other reason than that it would be noncompensable in the absence of physical injury even if liability could be otherwise established.

Kartell v. Blue Shield of Massachusetts

542 F. Supp. 782 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jul 7, 1982

The answer of the Supreme Judicial Court to the certified questions clearly disclose whether three of the challenged restraints are “clearly articulated and affirmatively expressed as state policy,” and thus meet the first … Royal Drug Company, 440 U.S. 205 , 99 S.Ct. 1067 , 59 L.Ed.2d 261 (1979), clearly establishes that the agreements in question here are not the “business of insurance” as required by the Act.

Hull v. Foley

17 Mass. L. Rptr. 187 · Massachusetts Superior Court · Jan 15, 2004

Whether the Defendant Physician Is Immune from Liability for Negligence under the Tort Claims Act The Massachusetts Tort Claims Act, G.L.c. 258, represents a limited waiver of sovereign immunity with respect to certain agencies … The undisputed facts establish that Dr. Foley’s treatment of Ms.

McCarthy v. Szostkiewicz

188 F. Supp. 2d 64 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Feb 25, 2002

Szostkiewicz’s argument that he is entitled to qualified immunity because McCarthy’s right was not “clearly established” under Harlow v. … Cabanillas, 238 F.3d 25, 35 (1st Cir.2001) (“Qualified immunity is an affirmative defense, and thus the burden of proof is on defendants-appellants.”).

Commonwealth v. Toney

385 Mass. 575 · Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · Mar 18, 1982

Use Immunity. The defendant filed a motion asking the judge for an order granting use immunity to Doris Toney in exchange for her testimony. … This court has not found it necessary to decide whether this statutory scheme establishes the exclusive procedure by which a Superior Court judge may grant immunity to a *588 witness. See Commonwealth v.

Surprenant v. Massachusetts Turnpike Authority

768 F. Supp. 2d 312 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · May 9, 2011

The court notes that if Surprenant elects to pass through the Tobin Bridge or one of the Tunnels, she pays the same toll as any Massachusetts resident other than the small group of local Massachusetts residents who qualify … As the court noted in its February 4, 2011 Miemorandum, the prospective relief Surprenant had sought in her original Complaint was the establishment of a constructive trust guaranteeing an eventual payout should the class

Williams v. Hartman

413 Mass. 398 · Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · Aug 14, 1992

The supervisor further testified that the defendant established his own work schedule. … Because the defendant argued that he had qualified immunity from the § 1983 claim, the Appeals Court correctly granted interlocutory review. See Hopper v. Callahan, 408 Mass. 621, 623-624 (1990).

Cook v. United States

26 F. Supp. 253 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jan 31, 1939

The fact that the state has power to undertake such enterprises, and that they are undertaken for what the state conceives to be the public benefit, does not establish immunity. South Carolina v. … When immunity is claimed from a tax laid on private businesses it must clearly appear that the burden upon the state functions is actual and substantial, not conjectural. Willcuts v.

DiLoreto v. Town of Winchester

14 Mass. L. Rptr. 31 · Massachusetts Superior Court · Oct 22, 2001

of discretion for which § 10(b) immunity is available. … But, when that conduct ‘involves rather the carrying out of previously established policies or plans, such acts should be governed by the established standards of tort liability applicable to private individuals and entities

Filios v. Commissioner of Revenue

415 Mass. 806 · Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · Jul 13, 1993

The Court determined that “the retention of immunity in § 111 is coextensive with the prohibition against discriminatory taxes embodied in the modern constitutional doctrine of intergovernmental tax immunity.” Davis v. … If any qualifying employees existed during the tax years at issue, it was the responsibility of the appellants to produce evidence of the fact.

Commonwealth v. George

430 Mass. 276 · Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · Oct 20, 1999

The Supreme Court held the defendant’s criminal conduct within a State necessarily qualified his right to travel. … Because we conclude the defendant did not demonstrate actual prejudice, we have no occasion to revisit our established rule.

Whitney v. City of Worcester

373 Mass. 208 · Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · Aug 16, 1977

The conduct raised in these two allegations is clearly ministerial. … Bath, 364 A.2d 1269 (Me. 1976), detailed Maine Tort Claims Act establishing numerous exceptions subsequently enacted, 1977 Me. Acts c. 741; Michigan: local governmental immunity abolished in Williams v.

Gagne v. Reddy

104 F.R.D. 454 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Dec 6, 1984

Clearly defendants cannot establish their state of mind or their level of knowledge at the time of the incidents by the questioning of the plaintiff. 6 Therefore, to question the plaintiff in an attempt to establish the knowledge … Porter, 737 F.2d 368, 372 (4th Cir.1984) (citing cases which establish the right not to be beaten). This is a clearly established constitutional right that the defendants reasonably should have been aware.

McAndrew v. School Committee of Cambridge

20 Mass. App. Ct. 356 · Massachusetts Appeals Court · Jul 11, 1985

contrary, in the pressing circumstances of the last days of August, 1980, the directors as agents of the defendants were well within their duties in doing what they could to obtain, subject to the necessary approvals, the most qualified … L. c. 71, § 38, were not applied to substitute teachers related to “day to day” substitutes and not to “extended term substitutes.” 6 “The separate reasons why the rule of immunity was established for the municipality, on

Building Inspector of Peabody v. Northeast Nursery

418 Mass. 401 · Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · Jul 19, 1994

These trees or shrubs or bushes are then root-balled and burlapped, or otherwise protected, root protected and shipped to Northeast in an already established, for resale, status. … The judge was correct, therefore, in declaring that the activities of the defendants are not immune under G.

Brayton v. Monson Public Schools

950 F. Supp. 33 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jan 17, 1997

immunity. … The qualified immunity defense provides ample room for “erroneous decisions” and “mistaken judgments.” Wood v. Clemons, 89 F.3d 922 , 931 n. 9 (1st Cir.1996).

National Private Truck Council, Inc. v. Commissioner of Revenue

426 Mass. 324 · Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · Dec 22, 1997

“Section 381 was designed to define clearly a lower limit for the exercise of [State taxing] power. ... … In construing § 381, the Supreme Court of Virginia stated that “[i]n enacting § 381, Congress did not identify any manner of delivery necessary to qualify for immunity.

Resource Management Co. v. Huggins

25 Mass. L. Rptr. 337 · Massachusetts Superior Court · Jul 16, 2008

If a clerk is not carrying out a judge’s directive, the clerk is entitled only to qualified immunity. … Qualified Immunity In the alternative, Huggins argues that RMC’s claims are barred by the Massachusetts Tort Claims Act, G.L.c. 258, §2.

Packish v. McMurtrie

539 F. Supp. 548 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · May 21, 1982

But the requirements of due process apply only to interests which qualify as protected interests. Id. Board of Regents v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564, 577 , 92 S.Ct. 2701, 2709 , 33 L.Ed.2d 548 (1972). … This language is clearly discretionary.