Case law

Sokol v. Best

25 Mass. L. Rptr. 600 · Massachusetts Superior Court · Jun 3, 2009

It is firmly settled that “government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … The issue of qualified immunity for Picariello and Peralta can be properly addressed by a motion for summary judgment. See Harlow, 457 U.S. at 818-19 .

Trustees of the Stigmatine Fathers, Inc. v. Secretary of Administration & Finance

369 Mass. 562 · Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · Jan 14, 1976

The transcript of the hearing on the motion does not show this, but it does not clearly show the contrary. … We think we should finally lay it to rest. *568 The statute required an “independent appraisal ... by a qualified disinterested appraiser.”

Fabrizio v. City of Quincy

9 Mass. App. Ct. 733 · Massachusetts Appeals Court · May 15, 1980

Under that formulation the vague or ambiguous complaint tends to be immune from dismissal under rule 12 (see, e.g., Balsavich v. Local 170, Intl. Brotherhood of Teamsters, 371 Mass. 283 , 287 [1976]; Dioguardi v. … Section 54 is one of a number of statutes the purpose of which is “to qualify a removal at pleasure, by requiring a record to be made of the cause.” O ’Dowd v. Boston, 149 Mass. 443, 446 (1889). See Ayers v.

MacFadyen v. Maki

70 Mass. App. Ct. 618 · Massachusetts Appeals Court · Oct 31, 2007

for immunity.” … Centner, Tort Liability for Sports and Recreational Activities: Expanding Immunity for Protected Classes and Activities, 26 J. of Legislation 1, 18 (2000).

Grendel's Den, Inc. v. Goodwin

495 F. Supp. 761 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Aug 14, 1980

Such statutes are clearly distinguishable. Section 16C does not impose such a flat statutory ban. Indeed, § 16C’s Establishment Clause defect exists because that statute does not impose a flat ban. … In Midcal, supra, 445 U.S. at 105 , 100 S.Ct. at 943 , a unanimous Supreme Court stated a two-part test for the establishment of Parker immunity: “[fjirst, the challenged restraint must be ‘one clearly articulated and affirmatively

Dusenberry v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts

District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jun 6, 2023

established for the purposes of qualified immunity. … Whether a public employee’s speech is entitled to First Amendment protections and thus, “clearly established” for the function of qualified immunity requires this Court to engage in

Comins v. Sharkansky

38 Mass. App. Ct. 37 · Massachusetts Appeals Court · Jan 9, 1995

Quasi judicial immunity. … “There is a clearly recognized distinction between the arbitration of a controversy and a contract one term of which calls for the ascertainment by designated persons of values, quantities, losses or similar facts.”

Johnson v. Queenan

12 Mass. L. Rptr. 461 · Massachusetts Superior Court · Oct 18, 2000

A qualified or conditional privilege, on the other hand, immunizes a defendant from liability unless he or she acted with actual malice, or unless there is ‘unnecessary, unreasonable or excessive publication,’ and the plaintiff … establishes that the defendant published the defamatory information recklessly.”

Abubardar v. Henriquez

District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jun 7, 2021

immunity because plaintiff’s claimed constitutional rights were not clearly established. … Clearly Established Law The second prong of the qualified immunity analysis “focuses on whether [an] officer had fair notice that [his] conduct

Horan v. Cabral

277 F. Supp. 3d 229 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Sep 29, 2017

Although Cabral raised a qualified immunity defense in her motion to dismiss memorandum, (Mem. of Law in Supp. of Andrea Cabral’s Mot. to Dismiss, 7 (dirt. no. 32)), a discussion of that defense is unnecessary given that … See Feliciano-Hernández, 663 F.3d at 533 (“The first prong of the [qualified] immunity analysis requires that a plaintiff state a claim of violation of a constitutional right.”).

Glanz v. Vernick

750 F. Supp. 39 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Nov 1, 1990

Vadnais claimed that the defendants refused to perform elective ear surgery on him because he had tested positive for Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV), associated with Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS). Mr. … Vadnais was “otherwise qualified” for surgery, and that the defendants qualify as “any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.”

Bixby v. Rehoboth, Town of

District Court, D. Massachusetts · Dec 4, 2024

In this context, however, the second aspect of the qualified immunity inquiry is “refined further” in that: [t]he ‘clearly established’ inquiry as to supervisors is bifurcated and is satisfied … If the constitutional right and the availability of supervisory liability that underlie a plaintiff’s § 1983 claim are both clearly established, the qualified immunity analysis ‘reduces to the test of objective legal

Cosenza v. City of Worcester

District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jan 2, 2019

Defendants argue that the caselaw demonstrates Plaintiff’s right was not clearly established and they are therefore entitled to qualified immunity. … clearly established right.”

Gonzalez v. Dooling

98 F. Supp. 3d 135 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Mar 23, 2015

Id. at 205, 121 S.Ct. 2151 (discussing qualified immunity in the context of a § 1983 excessive force claim). … Thus, Defendants assert the mistake of placing Plaintiff on CPSL was reasonable and, therefore, they are entitled to qualified immunity.

Robertson

District Court, D. Massachusetts · Oct 31, 2025

right; and (2) that right was clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct such that a reasonable official would have known the conduct was unlawful. … the subjective deliberate indifference standard or overcome qualified immunity.

Cook v. Hanover Insurance

32 Mass. App. Ct. 555 · Massachusetts Appeals Court · May 22, 1992

Lewis, 370 Mass. 619, 629-630 (1976) (abolishing the common law rule of interspousal immunity), and Feltch v. … We assume that statutes do not radically change the law unless the change is clearly expressed. See Ferullo’s Case, 331 Mass. 635, 637 (1954); Boston Lic. Bd. v. Boston, 17 Mass. App. Ct. 10, 21 (1983).

Nasir v. Town of Foxborough

District Court, D. Massachusetts · Feb 7, 2022

Whether That Right Was Clearly Established Even if the Officers did violate a constitutional right, qualified immunity shields them from liability if that right was not clearly established. … Qualified immunity protects those that do “not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Conlogue v.

Locator Services Group, Ltd. v. Treasurer & Receiver General

443 Mass. 837 · Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · Apr 11, 2005

Sovereign immunity. The Treasurer argues further that the doctrine of sovereign immunity bars Locator Services’s claims. We disagree. … Applying this standard, the Commonwealth has clearly abrogated its immunity in § 10A by expressly authorizing an action for mandamus relief and damages.

Rasheed v. Commissioner of Correction

446 Mass. 463 · Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · Apr 7, 2006

Qualified immunity. … The issues and the time period in question in that case and this, are sufficiently similar for us to conclude that entry of summary judgment for the defendants here would have been proper on qualified immunity grounds.

Commonwealth v. Curtis

388 Mass. 637 · Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · Apr 7, 1983

L. c. 211, § 3, requesting a grant of immunity to a defense witness. … Here, the prosecutor clearly established that the Commonwealth had a strong interest in opposing a grant of immunity.