Case law

Timothy G. Dalton v. Sarah H. Dalton

99 A.3d 723 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Aug 19, 2014

At the hearing, Sarah offered evidence from five witnesses, including two witnesses that she sought to qualify as experts. … [¶19] The foundational evidence that Sarah presented to qualify both witnesses as experts was inadequate.

Hodsdon v. Town of Greenville

52 F. Supp. 2d 117 · District Court, D. Maine · May 6, 1999

violates the Fourth Amendment by increasing the likelihood that deadly force will become necessary was not clearly established”). i. … The Court need not reach the issue of qualified immunity raised by Defendants with respect to this claim because Plaintiff has failed to establish a Fourth Amendment violation based on the absence of probable cause.

State v. Maine Central Railroad

66 Me. 488 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Jan 25, 1877

It does not say it shall have all the powers, privileges and immunities possessed by each and any one, or any two of the corporations. Now some had a conditional and qualified immunity from taxation and some had it not. … It *511 could not have been the legislative intention that a fraction of this consolidated railroad should have a qualified immunity from taxa tion and a fraction not have it.

Kevin F. Strong v. Rebecca M. Brakeley

137 A.3d 1007 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Apr 21, 2016

Strong argues, however, that Synernet does not qualify as one of the intended recipients of assistance identified by subsection 3—namely, a “board, authority or committee”—and therefore Brakeley and Bausman are not immune … [that] assist[s] in performing professional competence review activities,”3 and therefore Synernet qualifies as a “board, authority or committee” pursuant to 24 M.R.S. § 2511(3). [¶11] In challenging the application

Brock v. Hilton

832 F. Supp. 2d 67 · District Court, D. Maine · May 23, 2011

Qualified Immunity 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 … “whether the right was ‘clearly established’ at the time of the defendant’s alleged violation.”

Norton v. City of South Portland

831 F. Supp. 2d 340 · District Court, D. Maine · Dec 9, 2011

Rather, this case is readily resolved on the “clearly established” prong of the qualified immunity analysis. … under clearly established law.”

McNicholas v. Bickford

612 A.2d 866 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Aug 26, 1992

Accordingly, Bickford and La-moreau cannot be found to have violated a “clearly established” constitutional family integrity right of McNicholas. Cf. Meyers v. … (social services workers who under law were given broad general authority to remedy problems which may result in neglect or abuse of children were entitled to qualified immunity for ordering father to stay away from home

Collins v. Knox County

569 F. Supp. 2d 269 · District Court, D. Maine · Aug 1, 2008

The general rule of qualified immunity, set out in Harlow v. … In Cookish the court held that officials at the prison were entitled to qualified immunity because it was not clearly established what constituted an emergency. Id. at 448 n. 10.

McSorley v. Richmond

242 F. Supp. 2d 24 · District Court, D. Maine · Dec 31, 2002

Defendant Thomas Richmond bases his motion for summary judgment on the Par-ratt-Hudson doctrine and the doctrine of qualified immunity. … This question could be addressed as an aspect of the third qualified immunity element, or as a more basic element of a proper § 1983 claim.

Darling v. Augusta Mental Health Institute

535 A.2d 421 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Dec 22, 1987

Clearly such policymaking and supervisory conduct is at the core of the discretionary function immunity. … Thegen, 256 A.2d 162, 164-65 (Me.1969) (physician certifying patients for emergency admittance to mental hospital acts in quasi-judicial capacity and enjoys a qualified immunity).

Diva's, Inc. v. City of Bangor

176 F. Supp. 2d 30 · District Court, D. Maine · Dec 20, 2001

Qualified immunity applied because their actions were not such that a reasonable official would have known he was violating a clearly established right. B Street, 835 F.Supp. at 1271 (citing Anderson v. … In contrast to absolute immunity, local government officials are entitled to limited, or qualified, immu *39 nity in performing discretionary functions provided their actions “did not violate clearly established statutory

Fonte v. Collins

713 F. Supp. 511 · District Court, D. Maine · May 16, 1989

An officer’s qualified immunity is pierced only if there clearly was no probable cause at the time the arrest was made. Id. at 5 . … Accordingly, under the objective test established in Harlow v. Fitzgerald, Defendants may not avail themselves of qualified immunity from liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 .

Thompson v. City of Portland

612 F. Supp. 390 · District Court, D. Maine · Jul 10, 1985

Defendants argue persuasively, however, that they are entitled to qualified immunity from the 1983 claims to the extent that they are based on the alleged warrantless arrest without probable cause. In Harlow v. … In such a situation the qualified immunity of the officer is not pierced because the existence of probable cause to arrest Plaintiff is subject to legitimate debate and reasonable disagreement.

Jackson v. State

544 A.2d 291 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Jun 30, 1988

The State clearly has an overwhelming interest in protecting the children transported to school on public school buses. … In order to establish a prima facie case under the Rehabilitation Act, Jackson must show: 1) that he is a “handicapped individual” within the meaning of the Act; 2) that he is “otherwise qualified” for the school bus driver

Smith v. Yankee Construction Corp.

625 A.2d 904 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · May 28, 1993

Because we conclude that Concrete Craftsmen did not clearly and specifically waive its immunity under the Act, we direct the entry of a summary judgment in its favor. … City of Augusta, 622 A.2d 74, 75 (Me.1993) (qualified immunity from plaintiff’s section 1983 suit); Polley v. Atwell, 581 A.2d 410, 412-13 (Me.1990) (discretionary function immunity under Maine Tort Claims Act).

Pelkey v. City of Presque Isle

685 A.2d 429 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Nov 21, 1996

As city officials, Krysiak and Coffin are entitled to assert qualified immunity from a suit pursuant to section 1983. See Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232 , 94 S.Ct. 1683 , 40 L.Ed.2d 90 (1974); Laverne v. … Corning, 522 F.2d 1144 (2d Cir.1975) (municipal inspectors and fireman entitled to assert qualified immunity in section 1983 action). In Harlow v.

Hustvet v. Allina Health Sys.

283 F. Supp. 3d 734 · District Court, D. Maine · Aug 22, 2017

of whether a qualified individual is '100% healed' from their injury for the required individual assessment whether the qualified individual is able to perform the essential functions of ... her job either with or without … No. 28-13 at 1), the record clearly shows that Hustvet was willing to complete the RME and would have completed it had Allina not required her to develop immunity to rubella.

Marr v. Maine Department of Human Services

215 F. Supp. 2d 261 · District Court, D. Maine · Jul 9, 2002

According to the complaint, Logan Marr, as an involuntary dependent in the custody of the DHS and in its substitute care program, had a clearly established, fundamental Fourth Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment (substantive … Most government officials are entitled to only qualified immunity, but officials performing judicial, legislative, or prosecutorial functions have been afforded absolute immunity.

Burbank v. Davis

238 F. Supp. 2d 317 · District Court, D. Maine · Jan 6, 2003

In other words, it is possible that Davis violated Burbank’s clearly established constitutional rights but is immune from suit because it was objectively reasonable for Davis to do so because the unlawfulness of his actions … The qualified immunity claim really reduces to the argument that because the injuries in this case were not serious, any officer in the Portland Police Department would be entitled to qualified immunity no matter what role

Rice v. City of Biddeford

861 A.2d 668 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Oct 25, 2004

If an injury occurs only after repairs have *671 been completed, immunity is not waived by section 8104-A(4). [¶ 12] Rice’s responses to the City’s statement of material facts establish, without dispute, that the City completed … deposition testimony, reflected in the statements of material fact, also indicate that he asserts he was injured two or three days after he had observed the catch basin cleaning on August 23, and that, although he attempted to qualify