Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
5 Massachusetts opinions name it 3 courts 1994–2009 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Massachusetts courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Harlow v. Fitzgeraldgreen2 sentences2009See Harlow, 457 U.S. at 818-19 . 1996Although my decision grants summary judgment for Ali (against defendants Coalter, Luongo, Higgins, and Rahim) on Ali’s RFRA, rather than on his §1983 claim, I address the issue of qualified immunity briefly, because it appears from the caselaw that qualified immunity may be available as- a defense in civil rights actions other than those under §1983. 10 In civil rights actions under the Massachusetts Civil Rights Act and 42 U.S.C. §1983 , and, I assume, under RFRA, state actors sued in their individual capacities are protected by a “qualified immunity” from suit if their actions (1) were discr | 2 | 2 |
Delwood C. Collins v. Manuel Marina-Martinezgreen1 sentence2003“The ‘applicable standard’ is an objective one. . . . ‘Because qualified immunity does not address the substantive viability of a section 1983 claim, but rather the objective reasonableness of a defendant’s actions, a plaintiff who is entitled to prevail on the merits is not necessarily entitled to prevail on the issue of qualified immunity.’ ” Amsden v. Moran, 904 F.2d 748, 751 (1st Cir. 1990), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 1041 (1991), quoting Collins v. Marina-Martinez, 894 F.2d 474, 478 (1st Cir. 1990). | 1 | 1 |
Henry H. Amsden v. Thomas F. Moran, Etc.green1 sentence2003“The ‘applicable standard’ is an objective one. . . . ‘Because qualified immunity does not address the substantive viability of a section 1983 claim, but rather the objective reasonableness of a defendant’s actions, a plaintiff who is entitled to prevail on the merits is not necessarily entitled to prevail on the issue of qualified immunity.’ ” Amsden v. Moran, 904 F.2d 748, 751 (1st Cir. 1990), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 1041 (1991), quoting Collins v. Marina-Martinez, 894 F.2d 474, 478 (1st Cir. 1990). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Massachusetts. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Koch Refining Co. v. Farmers Union Central Exchange, Inc.
green
1 sentence2004Forastiere v. Breault, 485 U.S. 906 (1988), arguing, inter alla, that there were no material facts in dispute on the issue of qualified immunity. | 1 | 2004–2004 |
Zinker v. Doty
green
1 sentence2003“The ‘applicable standard’ is an objective one. . . . ‘Because qualified immunity does not address the substantive viability of a section 1983 claim, but rather the objective reasonableness of a defendant’s actions, a plaintiff who is entitled to prevail on the merits is not necessarily entitled to prevail on the issue of qualified immunity.’ ” Amsden v. Moran, 904 F.2d 748, 751 (1st Cir. 1990), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 1041 (1991), quoting Collins v. Marina-Martinez, 894 F.2d 474, 478 (1st Cir. 1990). | 1 | 2003–2003 |
Widmer v. Widmer
green
1 sentence1994The decision to seek a criminal complaint “is an a fortiori example of a discretionary function.” Id. 7 This rule comports with Restatement (Second) of Judgments § 28 (1982), which states in part: “Although an issue is actually litigated and determined by a valid and final judgment, and the determination is essential to the judgment, relitigation of the issue in a subsequent action between the parties is not precluded [where] [t]he party against whom preclusion is sought could not, as a matter of law, have obtained review of the judgment in the initial action . . . .” 8 The defendants also rai | 1 | 1994–1994 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.