Case law

King v. United States (In Re King)

396 B.R. 242 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Massachusetts · Nov 3, 2008

Notwithstanding this technical argument that tax liens are created and perfected upon demand, the case law has clearly established that filing a tax lien is an act to create or perfect a lien in violation of the automatic … The statutory waiver of sovereign immunity for willful violations of the automatic stay actions appears in 11 U.S.C. § 106 . A waiver of sovereign immunity must be “unequivocally expressed,” Dep’t of the Army v.

McClintock v. Pollawit

District Court, D. Massachusetts · Mar 27, 2025

Qualified Immunity Framework Because Defendant has raised a qualified immunity defense, Plaintiff bears the “burden of showing that qualified immunity does not apply.” Sargent v. … “Qualified immunity protects government officials, … from liability when they act under color of state law, Gray v.

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).

Ryan v. Hughes-Ortiz

81 Mass. App. Ct. 90 · Massachusetts Appeals Court · Jan 6, 2012

The PLCAA was enacted on October 26, 2005, and provides immunity to firearms manufacturers and dealers from any lawsuit, pending or otherwise, fitting the Act’s definition of a “qualified civil liability action.” 15 U.S.C … qualified product by the person or a third party . . . .” *99 The final element of the definition of a “qualified civil liability action” is that the civil action “result[ed] from the criminal or unlawful misuse of a qualified

Estate of Walenty v. Commonwealth

12 Mass. L. Rptr. 402 · Massachusetts Superior Court · Oct 4, 2000

The use of the word “may” and of the phrase “in its opinion” clearly grant to the Commonwealth’s highway department discretion to decide where lights are needed. *404 The second prong of the Stoller test requires a determination … of whether the discretion is of a type for which the statute provides immunity.

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.

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.

Furtado v. Town of Plymouth

451 Mass. 529 · Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · May 28, 2008

criminal investigations'''1 (emphasis added). 4 A judge granted summary judgment for the defendants, concluding that they were justified in ordering Furtado to take a lie detector test because their departmental investigation “clearly … Transactional immunity is “immunity from prosecution for offenses to which [the] compelled testimony relates.” Id. at 610 n.8, quoting Kastigar v. United States, 406 U.S. 441, 443 (1972). See Baglioni v.

Amadi v. Department of Children and Families

District Court, D. Massachusetts · Oct 26, 2018

[Q]ualified immunity protects government officials from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights … Qualified immunity is applicable unless the official violated a constitutional right that was clearly established at the time of the alleged misconduct.

United States v. Salemme

91 F. Supp. 2d 141 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Dec 23, 1999

The conclusion that Flemmi had received enforceable promises of immunity concerning the electronic surveillance conducted at 98 Prince Street, Vanessa’s, and 34 Guild Street is not qualified by the fact that the FBI may not … The court has considered whether the conclusion that Flemmi had an immunity agreement concerning the evidence intercepted at 98 Prince Street, Vanessa’s, and 34 Guild Street is qualified by the principle that agreements that

Commonwealth v. Harriman

134 Mass. 314 · Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · Feb 28, 1883

We are not able to see any just rule of construction by which we can thus limit and qualify the plain language of the proviso. … for which they were clearly liable to impeachment.

Browder v. City of Boston

District Court, D. Massachusetts · Oct 1, 2025

governing law was clearly established. … Qualified immunity is GRANTED, however, with respect to any claim premised on a categorical entitlement to refuse routine workplace testing or to nullify a neutral vaccine-or-test mandate, because the law has not clearly

Commonwealth v. Sanders

451 Mass. 290 · Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · Apr 30, 2008

The judge was also aware that the Commonwealth would not grant Baskins immunity. … Whether a grant of immunity should be extended is a matter reserved to the Commonwealth, see G. L. c. 233, § 20E, and the Commonwealth left no question that it would not immunize Baskin.

Bang v. Tran

1997 Mass. App. Div. 122 · Massachusetts District Court, Appellate Division · Aug 18, 1997

The fact that testimony was introduced at trial without objection by the defendant as to his conduct in leaving his children unattended in the double-parked car does not establish his implied consent to the trial of the issue … Stamboulis, 401 Mass. 762 (1988), the Court held that ‘‘no absolute curtain of immunity protects a parent who negligently causes injury to his or her minor child,” Id. at 765 , and that the abolition of parental tort immunity

ELM Medical Laboratory, Inc. v. RKO General, Inc.

403 Mass. 779 · Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · Jan 11, 1989

Massachusetts recognizes the “fair report privilege,” which 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 … Most of the broadcasts containing the allegedly inaccurate statements were qualified by phrases such as “possibly,” “as many as,” and “may have.”

Couchon v. Cousins

District Court, D. Massachusetts · Aug 31, 2018

“A government official sued under § 1983 is entitled to qualified immunity unless the official violated a statutory or constitutional right that was clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct … Finding that the first prong of the qualified immunity test is satisfied, the court now turns to the issue of whether “the violated right was clearly established at the time that the offending conduct occurred.”

Banks v. Town of Plainville

District Court, D. Massachusetts · Sep 13, 2021

Nov. 10, 2011), to find that a clearly established constitutional right to be free from threats of arrest and criminal charges defeated his qualified immunity. … See D. 45 ¶ 9 (“[i]n a qualified immunity analysis, . . .the Sanchez case does not support Plaintiff’s MCRA claim”); ¶ 16 (“[m]oreover, [Sanchez] cannot defeat qualified immunity because the facts are not similar to the

Medeiros v. United States

294 F. Supp. 198 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Dec 11, 1968

The plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment to the effect that any law or laws establishing liability for service in a war “not authorized by Congress” is unconstitutional. … He also seeks an injunction “against operation of the Tonkin Resolution” and/or the “Universal Military Training and Service Act” insofar as they operate to abridge his immunity to involuntary servitude.

Larson v. United States

84 F. Supp. 2d 218 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Feb 15, 2000

On December 6, 1999, after a conference was held to establish a briefing schedule, the government filed an opposition and a cross motion for summary judgment. … Judge Harrington clearly stated that sovereign immunity would preclude a tort claim if that was what Larson had intended to allege in Count III of the Complaint.