Case law

The Medora

16 F. Cas. 1309 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Aug 15, 1846

That the master is a competent witness, in favor of the holder of the bottomry, was decided in Furniss v. The Magoun [Case No. 5.163], a case reported since the decision of Deshon v. The Medora [Id. 3.S20]. … See same case, Leland v. The Medora [Id. S,?-”*7].

Antone v. Hicks

1 F. Cas. 1060 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Dec 15, 1874

Lovrein v. Thompson, [Case No. 8,557.] … Hanson v. Rowell, [Case No. 6,043.] In that case the judge said, that if the master had left them on board the foreign ship, without sufficient excuse, they should have had wages for the whole voyage.

Mabardy v. Railway Express Agency, Inc.

26 F. Supp. 25 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jan 17, 1939

See Cromwell v. Sac County, 94 U.S. 351 , 24 L.Ed. 195 ; Myers v. International Trust Company, 263 U.S. 64 , 44 S.Ct. 86 , 68 L.Ed. 165 ; Baltimore Steamship Co. v. … Browne v. Moran, Mass., 14 N.E.2d 119 ; Biggio v. Magee, 272 Mass. 185 , 172 N.E. 336 . Though the facts there appearing are different than those here appearing, the decision in Giedrewicz v.

Greater Worcester Cablevision, Inc. v. Carabetta Enterprises, Inc.

682 F. Supp. 1244 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Nov 20, 1985

It would be unfair to Lincoln, and contrary to the policy underlying removal and diversity jurisdiction, see Brown v. … Cablevision also relies on Board of Health of Franklin v.

United States v. 600 Cases, More or Less, of Assorted Liquor

4 F.2d 405 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Feb 27, 1925

J., Rose v. Himely, 4 Cranch, 241, 279 ( 2 L. Ed. 608 ). … Latham v. U.

Murphy v. Robinson (In re Ipswich Bituminous Concrete Products, Inc.)

82 B.R. 661 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Feb 18, 1988

Moreover, the law of the state in which the property is located governs questions of property rights, Johnson v. … Iacomini v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Co., 127 N.H. 73, 78 , 497 A.2d 854 (1985) (citations omitted).

RUSSELL'S GARDEN CENTER, INC. v. Nextel Communications

296 F. Supp. 2d 13 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Dec 16, 2003

Defendants cite Lucas v. … Nextel also cites Brehmer v.

First Marblehead Corp. v. House

401 F. Supp. 2d 152 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Nov 18, 2005

Rogers v. Fair, 902 F.2d 140, 143 (1st Cir.1990); see also Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 325 , 106 S.Ct. 2548 , 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986). … “Section 157, relating to rights and options respecting stock, requires board approval and a written instrument to create such rights or options.” Grimes v. Alteon, Inc., 804 A.2d 256, 260 (Del.2002).

M. H. McCarthy & Co. v. Doran

40 F.2d 963 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Apr 23, 1930

While it is true the regulation provides for a Board of Review, a hearing by, such Board cannot be invoked by the permittee, and the Board can only submit recommendations to the Commissioner or Administrator. … Doran v. Bay State Distributing Corporation (C. C. A.) 36 F.(2d) 657 . His order revoking plaintiff’s permit was subject to review in the equity court within any reasonable time (Hoell v. Mellon [D.

Taber v. Jenny

23 F. Cas. 605 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jan 10, 1856

Gladding v. Constant [Case No. 5,468]. … These irons were taken on board the Zone, as were also the anchor and rope attached to it. The irons were left on deck, the anchor was put below.

United States v. Cafiero

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

In United States v. … See e.g., Smith v. Ohio, 494 U.S. 541, 543 , 110 S.Ct. 1288, 1290 , 108 L.Ed.2d 464 (1990). In Smith v.

United States v. Lepore

304 F. Supp. 2d 183 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Feb 12, 2004

The hearing officer also advised Lepore that he could appeal any decision to the Board of Immigration Appeals (“Board”) in Washington. Id. at 5, ¶¶ 2-6. … United States v.

Bartus v. United States

930 F. Supp. 679 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jul 19, 1996

Kelley v. N.L.R.B., 79 F.3d 1238, 1248 (1st Cir.1996). … In Glarner v.

Santos v. Preferred Mutual Insurance

21 F. Supp. 3d 111 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · May 12, 2014

See, e.g., Fall River v. Aetna Ins. Co., 219 Mass. 454, 458 , 107 N.E. 367 (1914); Lancaster v. Gen. Accident Ins. … Co. v.

Jamieson v. United States

10 F. Supp. 321 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Mar 20, 1935

In United States v. S. F. … In none of the above cases has the Board adopted percentages as low as those taken by plaintiff’s expert.

United States v. McNatt

637 F. Supp. 882 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jun 16, 1986

United States v. Indelicato, 611 F.2d 376, 384 (1st Cir.1979); United States v. Brown, 603 F.2d 1022 (1st Cir.1979); United States v. Gabriner, 571 F.2d 48, 50 (1st Cir.1978); United States v. … Brown v. Ohio, 432 U.S. 161, 166 , 97 S.Ct. 2221, 2225 , 53 L.Ed.2d 187 (1977).

Pioneer Food & Beverage, Inc. v. Mosher

794 F. Supp. 449 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jul 27, 1992

See Cape Resort Hotels, Inc. v. … Blasco v.

Foster v. Sampson

9 F. Cas. 572 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Apr 15, 1849

The statute requires that there shall be a certain quantity of ship-bread on board, at the commencement of the voyage, beside any other provisions. … Dixon v. The Cyrus [Case No. 3,930]; The Castilia, 1 Hagg. Adm. 59. What is proper subsistence, depends upon what is usual, in similar voyages, in vessels of this description.

Grendel's Den, Inc. v. Larkin

582 F. Supp. 1220 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Apr 4, 1984

Arno v. Alcoholic Beverages Control Commission, 377 Mass. 83 , 384 N.E.2d 1223, 1228 (1979); Samel v. City of Pittsfield Licensing Board, 377 Mass. 908 , 384 N.E.2d 1230 (1979). … See Lamphere v. Brown Univ., 610 F.2d 46, 48 (1st Cir.1979). For this reason, Mr. Karasick’s request for a fee award and reimbursement of expenses is denied.

Furtado v. Bishop

84 F.R.D. 671 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Dec 20, 1979

See Lamphere v. Brown University, 1 Cir., 1979, 610 F.2d 46 . (5) Customary community rates. See post. (6) Fixed or contingent fee. Contingent. (7) Time limitations. None. (8) Amount involved and the results obtained. … Perez v. Rodriguez Bou, 1 Cir., 1978, 575 F.2d 21, 24 . This specific arrangement was entered into by counsel, and does not fall under the interdiction announced in Lamphere v. Brown University, ante.