Case law

United States v. Cafiero

242 F. Supp. 2d 49 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jan 28, 2003

Significantly, the McKenzie decision closed by noting, “[w]e decline to immunize international travelers who choose to pass through this country, however, briefly.” 818 F.2d 115 at 119 . (emphasis added). … It maintains that the American authorities clearly had probable cause as to both state and federal crimes when Cafiero was taken to the police barracks, and thus the cocaine retrieved from his person is therefore admissible

Dill v. American Home Mortgage Servicing, Inc.

935 F. Supp. 2d 299 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Mar 28, 2013

Plaintiffs have also failed to allege sufficient facts to establish that they are intended beneficiaries of the SPA. … Whether AHMSI’s December 30, 2010 letter misrepresented the criteria for modification hinges on the meaning of the terms "qualify” and "eligible” in this context.

Napier v. F/V DEESIE, INC.

360 F. Supp. 2d 195 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Mar 3, 2005

The traditional instances are veneral [sic] disease and injuries received as a result of intoxication, though on occasion the latter has been qualified in recognition of a classic predisposition of sailors ashore. … Although this date is taken from the allegations of the complaint, it is clearly in error since the first date on Napier's subsequent medical records is April 20, 2001. 6 .

Petrone v. Long Term Disability Income Plan

935 F. Supp. 2d 278 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Mar 27, 2013

Ultimately, none of these theories establishes a cognizable conflict of interest. • 1. … Saris qualified his observation by saying there was no “generalized overreaction.”

United States v. Arnett

342 F. Supp. 1255 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Nov 10, 1970

If voter registration is generally open to qualified jurors, and persons are not excluded from voter registration lists by invidiously discriminatory laws, customs, or practices, “it has become well-established that voter … This is clearly a matter de minimis. Moreover, it is doubtful if paupers are a cognizable group entitled to be taken into account in a cross section of the community.

United States v. Massachusetts

781 F. Supp. 2d 1 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · May 4, 2011

because the intent of Congress was not to “command[ ] that the less qualified be preferred over the better qualified simply because of [gender]. … Brown, Qualified Immunity and Interlocutory Fact-Finding in the Courts of Appeals, 114 Penn. St.

Kotler v. American Tobacco Co.

685 F. Supp. 15 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · May 25, 1988

Generally, retroactive operation will not be given to a statute unless the act clearly, by express and unequivocal language or necessary implication, indicates that the legislature intended a retroactive application. … Applicability of statutes of limitations in tobacco liability actions usually involves questions of fact for a jury, and American Tobacco will bear the burden of establishing as a matter of law that the challenged claims

United States v. Mailet

294 F. Supp. 761 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Dec 31, 1968

Forte, Inc., acquired no title whatever in June 1958, for its contract with the Government specified clearly that title would not vest in the purchaser until loading had been completed and “full and final payment” had been … One decision by the Court of Claims suggests that Mailet does so qualify, al *766 though the initial purchaser from the Government in that case acted in good faith. Turney v.

Kerr v. City of Attleboro

District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jan 8, 2024

initial review of the complaint and may dismiss any claim that is malicious or frivolous, fails to state a claim upon which relief may granted, or seeks monetary damages from a party who is immune … “To establish a prima facie case of a Title II violation, a plaintiff must show that: (1) he is a ‘qualified individual with a disability’; (2) he was ‘excluded from participation in

United States ex rel. Hagerty v. Cyberonics, Inc.

95 F. Supp. 3d 240 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Mar 31, 2015

As a TC, Hagerty was required to meet the new sales quotas established for his territory, a minimum of four new devices and ten replacement devices. (Id. ¶¶ 43, 60). … Before 2010, the public-disclosure bar of the FCA was clearly jurisdictional in nature.

United States v. Flemmi

108 F. Supp. 2d 39 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jul 5, 2000

It still did not disclose that Shields had been immunized and compelled to testify or the existence of John Doe 2 . Id. … element of the offense of conviction.’ ” Carrozza, 4 F.3d at 77 (quoting U.S.S.G. § 2E1.1). “ ‘[Underlying racketeering activity,’ ... means simply any act, whether or not charged against [a] defendant personally, that qualifies

Messere v. Fair

752 F. Supp. 48 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Aug 8, 1990

In no such case' is a showing of prejudice— or alternatively stated a showing of actual injury — a necessary element for establishing liability. … Here, the fine shadings of the spectrum need not be delineated, as the failure of the state to provide services to Messere falls clearly in the unconstitutional range.

Stein v. McDonough

District Court, D. Massachusetts · Dec 16, 2024

. § 206 et seq., and the Massachusetts Act to Establish Pay Equity (“MEPA”) by paying her less than male employees who held “essentially the same job” (id., Dkt. No. 1 at ¶ 2). … Thus, Plaintiff’s proposed amended complaint sufficiently alleges that she had one or more qualifying disabilities. See Connolly, 659 F.

Penate v. Scampini

District Court, D. Massachusetts · Apr 26, 2022

Finally, even if a jury reasonably could find that Detective Sullivan’s actions constituted excessive force, Detective Sullivan is entitled to qualified immunity. … Acts which involve “the carrying out of previously established policies or plans,” by contrast, do not warrant immunity. See Irwin v. Town of Ware, 467 N.E.2d 1292, 1299 (Mass. 1984) (quoting Whitney v.

Graham v. Sabol

734 F. Supp. 2d 194 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Aug 12, 2010

P., establishes the applicable time frame requiring petitioner to identify and serve these individuals in a Bivens action. … The standard of review for summary judgment is well established.

Johnson v. City of Worcester

District Court, D. Massachusetts · Mar 9, 2020

Whether Defendants are entitled to To Qualified Immunity On The Remaining Claims ‘Qualified immunity is a judge-made doctrine designed to “balance two important interests—the need to hold public officials accountable … The qualified immunity inquiry has two parts.

Darby v. Lelling

District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jan 25, 2022

Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, government officials are shielded from civil liability to the extent that “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of … violated was clearly established at the time of the violation.”

New York Life Ins. Co. v. London

15 F. Supp. 586 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jul 3, 1936

By the express terms of the Federal Declaratory Judgment Act, a further limitation seems to be clearly imposed upon the powers of the court to grant declaratory judgment. … In other words, I am of the opinion that the facts which may be established under the pleadings are sufficient to give the court jurisdiction under the statute.

United States v. Caron

941 F. Supp. 238 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Sep 12, 1996

The convergence of these two statutes establishes the following peculiar situation: a convicted felon as to whom the requisite amount of time since conviction has passed and who is otherwise qualified to serve as a juror … The Members of the City Council of Portland, 730 F.2d 41, 42 (1st Cir. 1984) (holding that established case law clearly grants no federal constitutional right to carry a concealed weapon); United States v.

Ratner v. OvaScience, Inc.

134 F. Supp. 3d 621 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Sep 28, 2015

To aid the Plaintiffs in adequately pleading the required element of scienter, however, they must establish the requisite strong inference that the Defendants knew the FDA would not grant AUGMENT 361 HCT/P designation. … After all, if FDA guidance from more than a decade *633 earlier clearly answered this question, there would be little reason to hold an advisory committee meeting on the topic.