Case law

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

Estridge v. Town of Ware

District Court, D. Massachusetts · Mar 25, 2021

Qualified Immunity Framework "Qualified immunity is 'an immunity from suit rather than a mere defense to liability.'" Castagna v. … conduct was "clearly established at the time."'"

Boston Police Department v. Jones

Massachusetts Appeals Court · Nov 10, 2020

Thus, public employers are not liable for postjudgment interest unless some other statute clearly waives sovereign immunity with respect to such interest"). … This language is not sufficiently "forceful" for us to conclude that the Legislature clearly intended recovery for postjudgment interest. Brown, supra, quoting Todino, supra.

Lachance v. Town of Charlton

District Court, D. Massachusetts · Mar 21, 2019

Defendants argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity. The First Circuit has adopted a two-part test to assess qualified immunity. … The second aspect of the clearly established prong requires the Court to assess “whether an objectively reasonable official would have believed that the action taken violated that clearly established constitutional right

Bradley v. Cicero

District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jan 28, 2021

To overcome qualified immunity requires that (1) “a public official has violated a plaintiff’s constitutionally protected right” and (2) “the particular right that the official has violated was clearly established at the … At the very least a question of qualified immunity would be raised whether the office – the officers would not have been aware and the question of whether it’s clearly established law at the time of this stop

Bruenell v. Harte-Hanks Communications, Inc.

3 Mass. L. Rptr. 127 · Massachusetts Superior Court · Dec 5, 1994

Once the moving party establishes the absence of a triable issue, the party opposing the motion must respond and allege specific facts establishing the existence of a material fact in order to defeat the motion. … Massachusetts law recognizes that this qualified privilege allows those who fairly and accurately report certain types of official or governmental action to be immune from liability for claims arising out of such reports.

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.

Fleet National Bank v. Wajda

434 Mass. 1009 · Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · Jun 28, 2001

In particular, in cases like this “[w]e have allowed the reformation of trust instruments which produced tax results that were clearly inconsistent with the settlor’s tax objectives.” Id., quoting BankBoston v. … to flow from the creation of a uni-trust; the respective interests of the life and charitable remainder beneficiaries (whom he obviously intended to benefit) will be greatly diminished by the imposition of taxes that he clearly

Levin v. United States

403 F. Supp. 99 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Nov 12, 1975

Bumberg’s injuries and subsequent death were clearly “service-connected.” … Military discipline is clearly only one factor to be considered in applying the Feres doctrine.

Columbus v. Biggio

76 F. Supp. 2d 43 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Nov 4, 1999

McLean Hospital Corp., 402 Mass. 413, 416 , 522 N.E.2d 975 (1988) (“Liability can be imposed on an employer who terminates an at-will employee in violation of a clearly established public policy.”). Mr. … (4) a similarly or less qualified younger person replaced him.

Robert E. McDonough v. Whalen

1 Mass. App. Ct. 573 · Massachusetts Appeals Court · Dec 4, 1973

In view of the foregoing, we need not consider Whalen’s claim of immunity as a public officer or DesVergnes’ remaining exceptions. … as a personal injury justifying the imposition of tort liability, if for no other reason than that it would be noncompensable in the absence of physical injury even if liability could be otherwise established.

Conlon v. Scaltreto

District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jun 21, 2024

Qualified Immunity Generally The doctrine of qualified immunity protects public employees “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … In the absence of any such clearly established right, the officers are entitled to qualified immunity. Accordingly, Count 3 as to the individual defendants will be dismissed. 4.

Commonwealth v. Reynolds

429 Mass. 388 · Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · Apr 15, 1999

Further, the statements were clearly material. … Immunity. The defendant asserted a defense of third-party culpability.

Lodge v. District Attorney for the Suffolk District

21 Mass. App. Ct. 277 · Massachusetts Appeals Court · Dec 20, 1985

The office of the district attorney for the Suffolk District clearly is not part of any of the executive offices of the Commonwealth. The various executive offices are created by G. … In any event, the Attorney General’s decision not to raise immunity takes the issue out *279 of the instant case at this point.

Egan v. Athol Memorial Hospital

971 F. Supp. 37 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Mar 28, 1997

Furthermore, the statute clearly states that failure to meet its conditions of notice does not, in itself, constitute failure to meet the statutory standard. 42 U.S.C. § 11112 (b). … State Law Immunity The issue of state law immunity, granted pursuant to M.G.L.c. 111, § 203(e), need not be addressed because it has already been determined that immunity is granted under HCQIA.

LeMay v. Dubois

8 Mass. L. Rptr. 289 · Massachusetts Superior Court · Mar 23, 1998

Qualified Immunity The defendants argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity because their actions were taken in good faith and did not violate any clearly established law. … plaintiffs rights were violated, the law is clearly established.

In the Matter of a Grand Jury Investigation

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · Sep 8, 2020

Collins, 386 Mass. 1, 8 (1982) ("Evidence tending to impeach the credibility of a key prosecution witness is clearly exculpatory"). … Commonwealth, 453 Mass. 827, 832 (2009), citing Martin, supra at 502-503 (circumstances for invoking privilege "must clearly indicate a possibility of self- incrimination").

Johnson v. Sheriff Department Plymouth

District Court, D. Massachusetts · Nov 12, 2019

Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, “government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … Determining whether a right is “clearly established” is a two-party inquiry.

Nota Construction Corp. v. Keyes Associates, Inc.

45 Mass. App. Ct. 15 · Massachusetts Appeals Court · May 29, 1998

L. c. 93A was barred because Keyes acted as a contract administrator and its actions in that capacity were immune from liability. … The actual contract sum shall be adjusted at the completion of the project by the unit prices established for an Add/Deduct in the General Bid Form, Section 00300(M).

O'Neil v. Canton Police Department

District Court, D. Massachusetts · Dec 20, 2024

Qualified immunity shields “government officials performing discretionary functions . . . from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights … In the absence of a clearly established right, the Court concludes that the individual Defendants’ actions were reasonable and fall within the protection of qualified immunity.