Case law

MacDonald v. Town of Eastham

946 F. Supp. 2d 235 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · May 24, 2013

The doctrine of qualified immunity shields state officials from liability for damages under § 1983 where their conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which *239 a reasonable person … the right at issue was ‘clearly established’ at the time of the defendant’s alleged violation.”

McGuinness v. Dubois

893 F. Supp. 2 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jul 14, 1995

The defendants argued that, with the claim so limited, they were entitled to qualified immunity as matter of law. Upon consideration of the arguments presented, this Court agrees. … Maass, 12 F.3d 1444, 1457-58 (9th Cir.1993), the state of the law in this area does not clearly establish that the conditions of McGuinness’ confinement violated the Constitution.

Tesson v. Commissioner, Massachusetts Department of Public Welfare

7 Mass. L. Rptr. 138 · Massachusetts Superior Court · Mar 27, 1997

Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 817-18 (1982) (establishing qualified immunity standard under 42 U.S.C. §1983 ); See also Anderson v. … Creighton, 483 U.S. 635, 641 (1987) (qualified immunity allows a defendant to move for summary judgment on the ground that, based on “clearly established” rights, he could reasonably have believed his acts to be lawful).

Gavrilles v. O'CONNOR

611 F. Supp. 210 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jun 17, 1985

The case is now before the Court on defendants’ motion for summary judgment, which raises *211 the affirmative defense of qualified immunity. Under Harlow v. … The impermissibility of retaliating against an employee for engaging in union activities was clearly established by 1982.

Caron v. Silvia

32 Mass. App. Ct. 271 · Massachusetts Appeals Court · Mar 23, 1992

entitled to a defense of qualified immunity from liability, and judgment was entered in their favor. *273 The judge correctly set forth the scope of immunity protecting the defendants, sued as individuals, for discretionary … Consistent with the reasons underlying the qualified immunity defense, it was important that the immunity issue be resolved at the earliest possible stage of litigation, preferably before any discovery, on a motion to dismiss

Rodriques v. Furtado

410 Mass. 878 · Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · Aug 12, 1991

Qualified immunity. We consider first whether Furtado and Dr. Falkoff are immunized from liability as matter of law. We conclude that they are immunized. … While the plaintiff is correct when she argues that the Aguilar-Spinelli requirements were clearly established at the time Furtado applied for the warrant, that is not sufficient to preclude Furtado from using a qualified

O'MALLEY v. Sheriff of Worcester County

415 Mass. 132 · Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · May 4, 1993

To overcome the defendants’ qualified immunity, the plaintiffs must show that the defendants directly participated in violating the plaintiffs’ “clearly established” rights. Anderson v. … We hold that, as a matter of law, the plaintiffs’ allegations do not defeat the Commissioner’s qualified immunity.

Williams v. O'Brien

78 Mass. App. Ct. 169 · Massachusetts Appeals Court · Oct 25, 2010

It is well established that the MCRA incorporates the standard of immunity for public officials developed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 , and accordingly “public officials are not liable under the [MCRA] for their discretionary … acts, unless they have violated a right under Federal or State constitutional or statutory law that was ‘clearly established’ at the time.”

Richey v. American Automobile Association, Inc.

380 Mass. 835 · Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · Jun 6, 1980

There may, indeed, be room for the observation that if the present facts should be held to qualify a discharged employee for relief, then a new practical definition might have to be given to employments theoretically terminable

Longval v. O'Toole

19 Mass. L. Rptr. 308 · Massachusetts Superior Court · Jan 28, 2005

Second, they assert that the complaint fails to allege facts constituting a violation of the plaintiffs “clearly established” rights, and that they therefore are entitled to qualified immunity. A. … Gilley, 500 U.S. 226, 232 (1991) (right must be clearly established “at the time the defendant acted” to overcome defense of qualified immunity). The standard is purely an objective one. In Harlow v.

Shabazz v. Cole

69 F. Supp. 2d 177 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jun 25, 1999

Qualified immunity exists insofar as defendants’ “ ‘conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional law of which a reasonable person would have known.’ ” Elliott v. … Thus, where the supervisor is not directly involved in the underlying violation, “the ‘clearly established’ prong of the qualified immunity inquiry is satisfied when (1) the subordinate’s actions violated a clearly established

Cronin v. Town of Amesbury

895 F. Supp. 375 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jul 25, 1995

Qualified Immunity In any event, Koelsch asserts the defense of qualified immunity. … The qualified immunity inquiry in this context is a familiar one: Qualified immunity shields government official performing discretionary functions from civil damages “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established

Birbiglia v. Saint Vincent Hospital, Inc.

427 Mass. 80 · Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · Mar 16, 1998

Geltman, 406 Mass. 811, 816-817 [1990]) would not be thereby shown to have failed to qualify for immunity. … The specific intent that would be required to establish that the action of the board violated any duty of good faith and fair dealing cannot be established by aggregating the knowledge of all hospital employees acting within

Maini v. Town of Norton

District Court, D. Massachusetts · Aug 25, 2023

Katz, 533 U.S. 194 (2001), a qualified immunity case involving allegations of the excessive use of force in restraining an unruly crowd of demonstrators protesting an appearance by the Vice President, the Supreme Court … Isbell, 207 F.3d 1253, 1257 (11th Cir. 2000) (trial court erred in refusing to grant qualified immunity where plaintiff could point to nothing ambit of reasonableness).

Penate v. Kaczmarek

District Court, D. Massachusetts · Dec 7, 2018

A defendant is entitled to the protection of qualified immunity when his “conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Kisela v. … Hughes, 138 S.Ct. 1148, 1152 (2018) (holding that qualified immunity protected a police officer in a Fourth Amendment context because the officer’s conduct did not violate clearly established law) (quotations omitted).

Wilmot v. Tracey

938 F. Supp. 2d 116 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Mar 28, 2013

“The doctrine of 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 person … “[T]he second, ‘clearly established’ step of the qualified immunity analysis ... in turn, has two aspects.” Maldonado, 568 F.3d at 269 .

Duarte v. Healy

405 Mass. 43 · Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · May 10, 1989

The first was common law immunity, as variously expressed in our cases, and the second was a qualified immunity patterned after Federal qualified immunity under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 . Id. at 35, 38 . … Furthermore, the Supreme Court already had established the basic two-part test for determining to what discretionary functions the doctrine of qualified immunity applies.

Nelson v. Salem State College

446 Mass. 525 · Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · Apr 13, 2006

was clearly established at the time of the alleged constitutional violation. … Indeed, an “unresolved” constitutional right, like the one presented in this case, cannot be “clearly established,” as required under the second prong of the qualified immunity test. See, e.g., Wilson v.

Matthews v. Rakiey

38 Mass. App. Ct. 490 · Massachusetts Appeals Court · May 5, 1995

(b) Clearly established right. We must next inquire whether the defendant’s conduct nonetheless violated a clearly established right of the plaintiff. … Since the defendant’s actions were discretionary and they did not violate any clearly established rights of the plaintiff, qualified immunity was warranted.

Maini v. Town of Norton

District Court, D. Massachusetts · Aug 28, 2023

Katz, 533 U.S. 194 (2001), a qualified immunity case involving allegations of the excessive use of force in restraining an unruly crowd of demonstrators protesting an appearance by the Vice President, the Supreme Court … Isbell, 207 F.3d 1253, 1257 (11th Cir. 2000) (trial court erred in refusing to grant qualified immunity where plaintiff despite being held against a van in a knee hold while being handcuffed could point to nothing more