Comfort v. Town of Pittsfield

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• determining that the town lacked insurance and therefore did not waive its discretionary function immunity
• finding genuine issue of material fact on scope of officers’ discretion based on allegation that officers handcuffed plaintiff, hit him in head, and shoved his head against door jamb
• granting summary judgment on Section 1983 and MCRA excessive force claims on same basis
• finding genuine issue of material fact as to whether police officers exceeded scope of discretion based on evidence that they handcuffed plaintiff, hit him in head, and shoved head against door jamb
• denying summary judgment based on genuine issue of fact as to whether police actions were taken pursuant to police policy in light of evidence that police chief “encouraged, demanded and even applauded the use of unconstitutionally excessive force against arrestees”
• denial of summary judgment because issues of fact as to whether officer had poli-cymaking authority

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).