Case law

The Pawashick

19 F. Cas. 5 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Sep 15, 1872

Lord Stowell, in Dalrymple v. … Thompson v. Musser, 1 Dall. [1 U. S.] 45S; Raynham v. Canton, 3 Pick. 293 ; Young v. Templeton, 4 La Ann. 234; Lord v. Staples, 3 Fost. [23 N. H.] 448.

Hayes v. Boston & Maine R. R.

66 F. Supp. 371 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jun 19, 1946

He had his teeth fixed and on August 10, 1943, returned to his local Selective Service Board and signed an application for voluntary induction into the armed forces. … Fish-gold v.

Central Massachusetts Area Local, American Postal Workers Union v. American Postal Workers Union

704 F. Supp. 305 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · May 31, 1988

See, e.g., Monzillo v. … Vaca v.

Butler v. Carney

17 F. Supp. 133 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Dec 2, 1936

Cary v. Curtis, 3 How. 236 , 11 L.Ed. 576 ; Curtis v. Fiedler, 2 Black, 461, 478 , 17 L.Ed. 273 ; The Collector v. Hubbard, 12 Wall. 1 , 20 L.Ed. 272 . The court said in Curtis v. … DeGroot v. United States, 5 Wall. 419, 432 , 18 L.Ed. 700 .” In Lynch v.

First Nat. Bank of Boston v. United States

7 F. Supp. 915 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Aug 7, 1934

Johnson v. Com’r of Internal Revenue (C. C. A.) 52 F.(2d) 726 ; Shoenberg v. Burnet, 66 App. D. C. 381, 55 F.(2d) 543 . A contrary rule was adopted in the Second Circuit in New York Trust Co. v. … This conclusion would seem to be in complete harmony with Helvering v. New York Trust Company, supra,, and recent decisions of the Board of Tax Appeals. Dibblee v. Com’r, 29 B. T. A. 1070; Nancy K. McFeely, 29 B. T.

Ferrari v. Bonardi (In re Auburn Medical Realty)

4 B.R. 738 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jun 30, 1980

Kargman v. Sullivan, 582 F.2d 131, 135 (1st Cir. 1978). … See: Brown v. Wright, 588 F.2d 708, 710 (9th Cir. 1978).

Shue v. Johnson

290 F. 621 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · May 28, 1923

As to Yee Ai this was clearly justified on the grounds which were pointed out in Davis v. Wakelee, 156 U. S. 680, 688 , 15 Sup. Ct. 555, 39 L. Ed. 578 . … If this means'that the board understood that a clear, reasonable, and substantial doubt as to the right to enter required the exclusion of the applicant, it was a fundamental error of law which vitiated the proceedings.

United States v. Danhi

525 F. Supp. 1201 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Nov 12, 1981

Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752, 763 (1962). … Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443 (1971); Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132 (1925).

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. McCarthy

578 F. Supp. 45 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jul 15, 1983

Odomes v. Nucare, Inc., 653 F.2d 246, 251 (6th Cir.1981); E.E.O.C. v. Aetna Insurance Company, 616 F.2d 719, 724 (4th Cir.1980). … Marshall v. Erin Food Services, Inc., 672 F.2d 229, 231 (1st Cir.1982).

Dooley v. Fritz

38 F.2d 123 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Feb 11, 1930

Brown, J., Electrical Accumulator Co. v. Brush Electric Co. (C. C.) 44 F. 602 , at page 604. The difficulty is in determining what constitutes prejudice to the defendant’s rights. … Co. v. Union Rolling Mill Co., 109 U. S. 702, 712 , 3 S. Ct. 594 , 27 L. Ed. 1081 ; City of Detroit v. Detroit City Railway Co. (C. C.) 55 FR. 569 (opinion by Taft, C. J.); and Greenville Banking & Trust Co. v.

Savoy v. White

753 F. Supp. 412 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Dec 28, 1990

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation v. Otero, 598 F.2d 627 , 633 n. 7 (1st Cir.1979). … See, e.g., T & M Dental Lab, Inc. v. First Industrial Bank, 714 F.Supp. 798 (E.D.La.1989); Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation v. C. W. Brooks, 652 F.Supp. 744 (N.D.Tex.1985); Interior Glass Services, Inc. v.

Flaherty v. Knapik

999 F. Supp. 2d 323 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Feb 21, 2014

Plaintiff Jane Wensley and Jack Callahan vied to represent Ward 3 on the Municipal Light Board. … .”); Carey v. Brown, 447 U.S. 455 , 100 S.Ct. 2286 , 65 L.Ed.2d 263 (1980) (finding public streets and sidewalks in a residential neighborhood are public forums.)

Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen v. Boston & Maine Railroad

244 F. Supp. 378 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jul 9, 1965

The dispute has been submitted to the Railroad Adjustment Board for determination. To ascertain the type of dispute in issue, i. e., whether major or minor, the Court turns to Elgin, J. & E. R. Co. v. … That being so, the exclusive primary jurisdiction to decide the merits of the dispute is in the Railroad Adjustment Board. Slocum v. Delaware, L. & W. R. Co., 339 U.S. 239 , 70 S.Ct. 577 , 94 L.Ed. 795 (1950).

Jenkins v. Roderick

156 F. Supp. 299 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Nov 5, 1957

J. and Brown J. in Belden v. Chase, 150 U.S. 674, 691, 703 , 14 S.Ct. 264 , 37 L.Ed. 1218 . See also, Waring v. Clarke, 5 How. 441, 460 , 46 U.S. 441, 460 , 12 L.Ed. 226 . … Troupe v. Chicago, Duluth & Georgian Bay Transit Co., 2 Cir., 234 F.2d 253, 257 . And it is a statute which was at once recognized as a sport by Judge Brown in The Empire, D.C.Mich. 19 F. 558 .

Spanner v. United States

19 F. Supp. 465 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · May 24, 1937

United States (C.C.A.) 73 F.(2d) 101 ; Ginochio v. United States (C.C.A.) 74 F.(2d) 42 ; Eidam v. United States (C.C.A.) 74 F.(2d) 350 ; McLaughlin v. United States (C.C.A.) 74 F.(2d) 506 . … Egan v. United States, supra; Smith v. United States (D.C.) 56 F.(2d) 636 . It appears that until 1931 the petitioner acquiesced in the decision of the Board of Appeals.

Alston v. Town of Brookline

District Court, D. Massachusetts · Apr 2, 2020

TOWN OF BROOKLINE, MASSACHUSETTS, BROOKLINE BOARD OF SELECTMEN, BETSY DEWITT, KENNETH GOLDSTEIN, NANCY DALY, NEIL WISHINSKY, BERNARD GREENE, BEN FRANCO, NANCY HELLER, SANDRA DEBOW, JOSLIN … Brown was scheduled in the fall of 2014, but his new (and present) lawyer objected to further examination by Dr. Brown.

Lamb v. Parkman

14 F. Cas. 1019 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Feb 15, 1857

If the mode of compensation is by the ton, then the smaller the number of tons he is to put on board, the greater must be the rate. … In Baxter v. Leland [Case No. 1,125], a general ship took on board, at New Orleans, a quantity of flour, under the common bill of lading, for a voyage to New l'ork.

Janney v. Tudor Co.

3 F. 814 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jul 1, 1880

It appeared at the hearing that the cutch was received on board the Iceberg at Calcutta, in the months of January and February, 1878, in good order and condition, and bills of lading were delivered for the same, containing … Nelson v. Woodruff, 1 Black, 156 ; Brig Coleaberg, 1 Black, 170 ; Clark v. Barnwell, 12 How. 272 ; Lamb v. Parkman, 1 Sprague, 343 ; The Invincible, 1 Low. 225 ; Libby v. Gage, 14 Allen, 261 .

Silverman v. Laird

339 F. Supp. 876 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Mar 15, 1972

Welsh v. United States, supra-, United States v. Seeger, supra. … The comment of Judge Zirpoli in Browning v.

Aronson v. White

13 F. Supp. 913 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Feb 14, 1936

As stated in Baltimore Talking Board Co. v. … (See Baltimore Talking Board Co. v. Miles [C.C.A.] 280 F. 658 , T.D. 3401, C.B. 1-2, 297.) Under the strict interpretation of that word all picture puzzles could be classified as games and held to be taxable.