Case law

First Agricultural National Bank of Berkshire County v. State Tax Commission

353 Mass. 172 · Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · Jul 27, 1967

The Bank of the United States, 9 Wheat. 738 , in which the court held unconstitutional a discriminatory Ohio tax levied upon the bank, established a doctrine of absolute intergovernmental immunity, regardless of the nature … At the least, they establish the proposition that privately owned corporations organized for profit which perform some governmental functions are not thereby immunized from nondiscriminatory State taxes of general application

McMillan v. Westport Insurance

19 Mass. L. Rptr. 55 · Massachusetts Superior Court · Dec 12, 2004

Id. 4 Some courts grant absolute immunity to opinion work product but only qualified immunity to ordinary work product where a party may overcome the privilege by a showing of substantial need. … Even those courts that are reluctant to grant absolute immunity to opinion work product state that discovery of such materials may be granted in only rare situations.

Gallant v. City of Worcester

383 Mass. 707 · Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · Jun 4, 1981

The complaint clearly is one within the scope of G. L. c. 84, § 15. Prior to the enactment of G. L. c. 258, G. L. c. 84 was the exclusive remedy for claims against governmental entities responsible for defects in ways. … The record suggests but does not establish such compliance. We further decline to decide, on the scant record before us, whether the discretionary function exception of G.

Mason v. Intercolonial Railway of Canada

197 Mass. 349 · Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · Feb 26, 1908

The general subject of the immunity of the sovereign power from the jurisdiction of its own court was considered and discussed at great length by Mr. Justice Gray, in Briggs v. … The doctrine that the courts have no jurisdiction to proceed with a suit against the sovereign of another State is established in England in numerous decisions.

Hullum

District Court, D. Massachusetts · Apr 1, 2026

Clearly Established The Court also concludes that Hullum has met his burden as to the second prong of the qualified immunity inquiry. … three or four circuits is sufficient to clearly establish the law). Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity.

Pellot v. Ilona Handicraft, Inc.

2 Mass. L. Rptr. 61 · Massachusetts Superior Court · Mar 21, 1994

Finally, Hanlon maintains that he is entitled to qualified immunity. … Hanlon’s Qualified Immunity Defense Hanlon asserts that even if plaintiff has submitted sufficient proof to present to a trier of fact, he is entitled to qualified immunity.

Jacobs v. Town of Scituate

948 F. Supp. 7 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Nov 14, 1996

Agnew is protected from this claim by the doctrine of qualified immunity. See Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635 , 107 S.Ct. 3034 , 97 L.Ed.2d 523 (1987). … All his decisions were discretionary ones, and they did not violate any clearly established statutory or constitutional rights.

Santiago v. Keyes

839 F. Supp. 2d 421 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Mar 8, 2012

It is well established that the Eleventh Amendment bars actions by private individuals against a state or its agencies in federal court absent a waiver of sovereign immunity by the state or clear Congressional intent to abrogate … such immunity.

E.T. ex rel. Doe v. Bureau of Special Education Appeals of the Division of Administrative Law Appeals

169 F. Supp. 3d 221 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Mar 11, 2016

Federal and state officers sued under § 1983 enjoy qualified immunity “so long as their conduct ‘does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’ ” Mullenix … Qualified immunity shields government officials whose conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v.

Sheriff of Suffolk County v. Jail Officers & Employees of Suffolk County

465 Mass. 584 · Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · Jun 14, 2013

It is a well-established rule that “[w]here one is under contract for personal service, and is discharged, it becomes his duty to dispose of his time in a reasonable way, so as to obtain as large compensation as possible, … As our cases clearly indicate, entities entitled to sovereign immunity are not liable for interest under G. L. c. 235, § 8, absent an unequivocal statutory waiver not present here.

DeNicola v. Potter

District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jun 30, 2020

Qualified Immunity “Because [Plaintiff] has failed to establish a constitutional violation on part of [Defendants] . . . the Court does not need to address their qualified … immunity argument.”

Oeschger v. Fitzgerald

2 Mass. App. Ct. 472 · Massachusetts Appeals Court · Jul 29, 1974

The immunity of the city implies immunity of its school department. See, e.g. Morash & Sons, Inc. v. Commonwealth, supra, at 620 . … The failure to provide safe equipment and the failure to warn are clearly “omission [s] of . . . act[s] which a person ought to do.” Trum v.

Apkin v. Treasurer & Receiver General

401 Mass. 427 · Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · Jan 6, 1988

We conclude, first, that a statute should not be read in derogation of a State’s sovereign interests unless it clearly appears that Congress so intended, and, second, that Congress did not clearly express an intention to … The Supreme Court has expressly adopted a clear statement rule in the related context of the States’ constitutional immunity from suit in Federal court under the Eleventh Amendment.

Northland Cranberries, Inc. v. Ocean Spray Cranberries, Inc.

382 F. Supp. 2d 221 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jun 10, 2004

“When statutory interpretation is at issue, the plain and unambiguous meaning of a statute prevails in the absence of clearly expressed legislative intent to the contrary.” … Nothing in that case suggests that foreign persons who are “engaged in the production of agricultural products” are not “qualified to act collectively” under the Capper-Volstead Act.

Zisk v. Quincy Hospital

64 Mass. App. Ct. 517 · Massachusetts Appeals Court · Sep 14, 2005

. §§ 11101 et seq. (1995), granted qualified immunity to health care entities and physicians who participate in professional peer review processes. … “On its face, [ 42 U.S.C. § 11111 (a)(1)] does not explicitly establish immunity from suit,” but from liability for damages only. Bryan v. James E. Holmes Regional Med.

Cronin v. Strayer

392 Mass. 525 · Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · Jul 17, 1984

L. c. 231, § 85N does grant such Committees immunity from liability for good faith actions.” But the judge concluded that the statute does not “grant either the defendant ... or the Committee immunity from discovery.” … The qualified privilege could be overcome by a showing of “extraordinary circumstances.”

Bahiakina v. United States Postal Service

102 F. Supp. 3d 369 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Apr 30, 2015

Bahiakina cannot meet his burden of establishing that the Court has subject matter jurisdiction over his claim. “[T]he Postal Service enjoys federal sovereign immunity absent a waiver.” Dolan v. … The appeals process established by the Postal Service is, unfortunately, the end of the road for Mr. Bahiakina.

De Dios v. Massachusetts Executive Office of Environmental Affairs

23 Mass. L. Rptr. 565 · Massachusetts Superior Court · Feb 26, 2008

sovereign immunity. … Upon parsing the statute, two requirements emerge in order for an owner to qualify for immunity: (1) the owner must permit the public to use the land for recreational purposes, and (2) the owner must not impose a charge or

Commonwealth v. Doyle

5 Mass. App. Ct. 544 · Massachusetts Appeals Court · Jul 25, 1977

Wallace, 369 Mass. 876 (1976), established that a district attorney alone does not have the authority to grant immunity and thus the witness Canavan was not protected from prosecution. … Whether the defendant was planning to obtain a divorce was clearly collateral to the issue which was the subject matter of the trial.

Vuthy Seng v. Commonwealth

445 Mass. 536 · Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · Dec 15, 2005

physicians or one or more qualified psychologists. … As to the identity of the experts, the statute says only that they must be “qualified physicians” or “qualified psychologists.” See G.