Case law

Lamarche v. Costain

225 F. Supp. 2d 83 · District Court, D. Maine · Oct 7, 2002

right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation; and (3) whether an objectively reasonable official, similarly situated, would have understood the challenged conduct to violate that clearly established … Clearly Established Constitutional Right Qualified immunity analysis requires the Court to next examine whether Plaintiffs constitutional right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation.

King v. Town of Monmouth

697 A.2d 837 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Jul 18, 1997

Nor has King defeated qualified immunity for the individual defendants by demonstrating their engagement in specific actions that transgressed clearly established constitutional rights. See Lyons v. … The court therefore did not err in extending qualified immunity to the individual defendants.

Young America's Found. v. Kaler

370 F. Supp. 3d 967 · District Court, D. Maine · Feb 26, 2019

decide qualified immunity defenses on that prong when "it is plain that a constitutional right is not clearly established but far from obvious whether in fact there is such a right"); accord Issaenko v. … Minn. 2014) (granting qualified immunity to University officials based solely on an analysis of the "clearly established" prong of qualified immunity).

Jackson v. Town of Waldoboro

751 F. Supp. 2d 263 · District Court, D. Maine · Nov 22, 2010

In Pearson , the Supreme Court established that the qualified immunity is a two part test. … Under this second stage of the qualified immunity inquiry, despite a clearly established and well-known right to be free from excessive deadly force, a reasonable officer standing in Curtis’ shoes — struggling in the woods

Singer v. State of Maine

865 F. Supp. 19 · District Court, D. Maine · Oct 4, 1994

Defendants respond that *22 these individuals are protected from suit pursuant to the doctrine of qualified immunity. 1 “When a defendant moves for summary judgment based on the doctrine of qualified immunity, the court must … These same defendants, however, do not possess qualified immunity with respect to Plaintiff Fifth Amendment § 1983 claim.

McNally v. Mokarzel

386 A.2d 744 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · May 26, 1978

In the latter circumstance only a qualified privilege attaches, one which can be overcome by a showing of actual malice. … Id. at 112 . 2 In the case at bar, the complaint clearly alleges actual malice on the Defend *747 ants’ part, and this allegation would be sufficient to withstand a Rule 12(b)(6) motion if no more than the qualified privilege

Woods v. York County

534 F. Supp. 2d 153 · District Court, D. Maine · Feb 19, 2008

Qualified Immunity Defendants next argue that Plaintiffs § 1983 claims against Cote and Vitiello are barred by qualified immunity. … his conduct jeopardized [the plaintiffs clearly established] rights.”

Pew v. Scopino

904 F. Supp. 18 · District Court, D. Maine · Mar 15, 1995

Qualified Immunity When someone sues an official under section 1983 for damages resulting from the performance of the official’s duties, the qualified immunity defense prevents recovery if the conduct in question “does not … would have known that he or she was violating a clearly established right.

Mead v. INDEPENDENCE ASS'N

714 F. Supp. 2d 188 · District Court, D. Maine · May 27, 2010

However, in the interest of completeness, the Court will also address the second prong of the qualified immunity analysis — whether, assuming that a constitutional violation occurred, such right was clearly established. … Accordingly, even assuming Plaintiff had adequately alleged a constitutional violation, Defendants Cobb and Braden would be entitled to qualified immunity because such violation was not clearly established.

Penn v. FMC Corp.

901 A.2d 814 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Jul 19, 2006

Id. [¶ 8] Penn contends that the Legislature, by using the word “temporary” in section 104, intended for a time limitation to inhere in section 104 beyond which a worker’s temporary employment no longer qualifies as “temporary … ” and the employer’s immunity from suit no longer applies.

Trafton v. Devlin

43 F. Supp. 2d 56 · District Court, D. Maine · Mar 4, 1999

prosecutors violated Plaintiffs’ “clearly established constitutional rights.” … United States, 99 F.3d 1200, 1215 (1st Cir.1996) (“a court may ... bypass the qualified immunity analysis if it would be futile because current law forecloses the claim on the merits”).

Przyborowski v. Howard

863 F. Supp. 22 · District Court, D. Maine · Jul 7, 1994

Detective Howard has moved for summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity for the federal claim and absolute immunity for the state claim. … Przyborowski has therefore failed to show that it was “clearly established” that a warrant in Maine could not be used for such a purpose. 3 Detective Howard did not violate any clearly established constitutional right by

Collins v. Schmidt

326 F. Supp. 3d 733 · District Court, D. Maine · Aug 9, 2018

Thus, Schmidt is entitled to qualified immunity unless (1) the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, establishes a violation of a constitutional or statutory right, and (2) the right was clearly established … As such, Schmidt is not entitled to qualified immunity.

Eaton v. Hancock County

741 F. Supp. 2d 307 · District Court, D. Maine · Sep 28, 2010

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 would have … Qualified Immunity as to Unreasonable Seizure The Magistrate Judge determined that Deputy Lepper is not entitled to qualified immunity on the unreasonable seizure claim because [i]t was clearly established long before 2006

Seekamp v. Michaud

936 F. Supp. 23 · District Court, D. Maine · Jul 30, 1996

In order to overcome a qualified immunity defense, a plaintiff must allege and prove that a defendant official violated a clearly established constitutional right. … Although it was clearly established that the events in this case constituted a seizure, the deputies are still entitled to qualified immunity if it would not have been apparent to a reasonable official in their position that

Rodway v. Wiswall

267 A.2d 374 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Jun 29, 1970

The three named defendants were then and continued to be duly appointed and qualified members of the Board. … Richards was clearly a decision based upon public policy and which admittedly overruled prior case law which had applied the “good faith” test.

Clark v. Webster

384 F. Supp. 2d 371 · District Court, D. Maine · Aug 31, 2005

The doctrine of qualified immunity protects public officials from liability under § 1983 so long as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would … established at the time of the alleged violation (the first two prongs of the qualified immunity analysis).

United States v. Carter

799 A.2d 1232 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Jun 25, 2002

The factual basis for this contention is not clearly articulated, but even if there is information about this suit being reported to credit agencies, the reporting is temporary, and is a necessary incident to litigation of … United States, 64 F.3d 1352, 1357 (9th Cir.1995) (official immunity is different from other defenses because "the judicial inquiry itself, rather than just a merits judgment, causes the disruption that the doctrine of immunity

Willette v. City of Waterville

516 F. Supp. 2d 139 · District Court, D. Maine · Oct 15, 2007

Qualified Immunity Ms. Willette’s claims against Officer Sellar and Chief of Police Morris (in his individual capacity) must be analyzed through the lens of qualified immunity. … The First Circuit’s three-step approach to qualified immunity claims asks: (1) whether the claimant has alleged the deprivation of an actual constitutional right; (2) whether the right was clearly established at the time

Smith v. Jackson

463 F. Supp. 2d 72 · District Court, D. Maine · Nov 28, 2006

Qualified Immunity Defendants’ argue, in the alternative, that they are entitled to qualified immunity. To analyze this question, consistent with Saucier v. … Clearly Established Rights The sécond inquiry requires far less consideration. The Fourth Amendment’s proscription on unreasonable seizures is, without question, “clearly established.”