Case law

Duracraft Corp. v. Holmes Products Corp.

427 Mass. 156 · Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · Mar 25, 1998

solely “based on” the petitioning activity: a defamation claim, for example, can be tested by showing that the defendant’s petitioning activity was devoid of factual or legal support and thus can overcome a presumption of qualified … immunity.

Gund v. Planning Board of Cambridge

Massachusetts Appeals Court · Jul 19, 2017

Furthermore, we cannot countenance the plaintiffs' efforts to establish, by citation to the briefs in Durkin, that the facts of Durkin were different from those stated in the published opinion. … Rothman, 448 Mass. 190, 197-198 (2007) (whether lot became unbuildable because of increase in dimensional requirements or by repeal of exemption from dimensional requirements immaterial when considering whether lot qualified

Nwaubani v. Grossman

199 F. Supp. 3d 367 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jul 26, 2016

The individual defendants acting in their personal capacity can be liable, but *377 are protected, in a limited way, by qualified immunity. See, e.g., Newman v. … Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 884 F.2d 19, 23 (1st Cir.1989) (applying qualified immunity to state university officials).

Picard

District Court, D. Massachusetts · Feb 5, 2026

immunity because “the law is not clearly established” due to the decision in Commonwealth v. … Picard’s right to use a megaphone is not clearly established. Docket No. 32 at 2-3.

Doe v. Fournier

851 F. Supp. 2d 207 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Feb 22, 2012

Defendants also argue that the § 1983 claim must be dismissed pursuant to the doctrine of qualified immunity, which provides public officials immunity from suit under some circumstances. … Since the qualified immunity analysis is substantially identical to the analysis of “deliberate indifference,” Defendants' qualified immunity contention lacks merit for the reasons discussed above. .

Licari v. Ferruzzi

3 Mass. L. Rptr. 577 · Massachusetts Superior Court · Apr 27, 1995

immunity. … Colonial does allege a violation of at least one clearly established legal right, i.e. that Ferruzzi’s revocation of the building permits violated state law because he was ordered to do so by the Planning Board and “a building

White v. Holton

1 Mass. L. Rptr. 213 · Massachusetts Superior Court · Oct 4, 1993

As LaLonde clearly notes, however, this immunity has only been extended to officers acting “at a judge’s direction.” Id. at 211 . … In her reply memorandum, however, the defendant says that she does not contend that she has an absolute immunity but rather a qualified immunity. (Defendant’s reply memorandum, p. 15.)

Lassman v. Reilly (In Re Feeley)

393 B.R. 43 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Massachusetts · Aug 21, 2008

First, it should be clearly noted that Lassman is being charged with NOT performing his duties as he should have. … In doing so, it outlined the genesis of derivative judicial immunity.

Clermont v. Fallon Clinic, Inc.

16 Mass. L. Rptr. 325 · Massachusetts Superior Court · May 15, 2003

The HCQIA grants qualified immunity to professional review bodies, and others who participate in the review action, provided that the professional review is taken: (1) in the reasonable belief that the action was in the furtherance … Clearly, a corporation cannot be held liable for interference with contractual relations between itself and its employees. Appley v. Locke, 396 Mass. 540, *332 543 (1986).

John Doe v. Spears

District Court, D. Massachusetts · Sep 22, 2022

The doctrine of qualified immunity provides government officials immunity from suit when an official’s conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … Thus, Kelly’s alleged conduct did not violate any clearly established constitutional right and she is entitled to qualified immunity.

Onofrio v. Department of Mental Health

408 Mass. 605 · Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · Nov 19, 1990

DMH’s next contention is that it is immune from liability because, by virtue of G. L. c. 258, § 10 (b) (1988 ed.), the waiver of immunity otherwise provided by c. 258 does not apply. … Clearly, expert testimony is not a prerequisite to a finding about matters that are within ordinary human experience.

MacGregor v. Born

21 Mass. L. Rptr. 353 · Massachusetts Superior Court · Aug 17, 2006

The continued identification and verification of the altered immune response seen in patients with ASD is clearly required.” P. 560-61. … immune reactions.”

McGuinness v. DuBois

891 F. Supp. 25 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jun 19, 1995

The defendants may not be held personally liable, however, as they are entitled to qualified immunity. See the discussion of Count III, infra. 2. … A reasonable, although mistaken, conclusion about the lawfulness of one’s conduct does not subject a government official to personal lia-bility_ [T]he qualified immunity standard gives ample room for mistaken judgments by

Herman v. Home Depot, Inc.

2001 Mass. App. Div. 132 · Massachusetts District Court, Appellate Division · Jun 19, 2001

If the latter statute is so repugnant to the statutory scheme established by the former, a repeal by implication may be implied. Cf. Registrar of Motor Vehicles v. … and the Superior Court to issue a grant of immunity.

Powers v. Mukpo

10 Mass. L. Rptr. 535 · Massachusetts Superior Court · Sep 27, 1999

Discussion The DeCiccos’ principal argument is that the release signed by Powers entitles them to immunity from *537 suit. I agree. … See §2D(d)(2). 8 Powers’s second contention is that the release is ambiguous because it does not clearly delineate the contracting parties.

Blake v. Howland

26 Mass. L. Rptr. 335 · Massachusetts Superior Court · Dec 2, 2009

Qualified Immunity Blake has sued all of the Defendants in both their official and individual capacities, except for Michael Thomas, who is sued only his individual capacity. 21 The doctrine of qualified immunity shields … It is recognized that the qualified immunity standard gives “ample room for mistaken judgments by protecting all but the plainly incompetent or those who knowingly violate the law.” Hudson v.

Arrington v. Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority

306 F. Supp. 1355 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Dec 22, 1969

. § 1983) insofar as it denies them privileges and immunities guaranteed by the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. … Prior to the present rank list, the MBTA had established two previous lists, one in 1965 and another in 1967.

Jarry v. Medical Malpractice Professional Insurance

4 Mass. L. Rptr. 343 · Massachusetts Superior Court · May 16, 1995

Charitable Immunity Defendant claims that it is a non-profit charity and thus is entitled to a limitation of its liability to $20,000 as provided in G.L.c. 231, §85K. … In order to qualify for this limitation, MMPIA must establish that it is a charity within the meaning of the statute. This Court finds that the MMPIA is not a charity within the meaning of the statute.

Best v. Rome

858 F. Supp. 271 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jun 21, 1994

that the plaintiffs written authorization, which permitted the Angoff firm to represent him in the 1988 wage dispute, did not create an attorney-client relationship for the arbitration claim. 9 Here, the 1988 authorization clearly … Rather, it is offered and is admissible to establish Rome’s state of mind prior to the grievance hearing.

Wholey v. Tyrell

567 F. Supp. 2d 279 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jul 28, 2008

Defendants have also suggested that they are entitled to qualified immunity. … But since this court finds neither a constitutional nor a statutory violation, it need go no further in analyzing the issue of qualified immunity. 47 . Compl. ¶ XXII. 48 . Bl(a)ck Tea Soc’y v.