Case law

Patrick v. United States

298 F. Supp. 2d 206 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jan 15, 2004

Because the claims in a 2255 petition must be constitutional claims, this situation clearly manifests a “denial of a constitutional right.” … Clearly, if an act of confiscation by corrections officer [sic] prevents a petitioner from filing a habe-as corpus petition before expiration of one-year limitation period can establish exceptional circumstances warranting

Raso v. Lago

958 F. Supp. 686 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jan 6, 1997

Of these 308, 152 former West End residents have represented that they qualify for the 58 low-income units, 100 that they qualify for the 48 moderate-income units, and 56 that they can afford the 77 market-rate units. … Massachusetts law requires three elements to create an express trust: an intent to create a trust; a clearly *700 identifiable trust res; and identifiable beneficiaries. Curran v.

Brown v. Butler

District Court, D. Massachusetts · Mar 15, 2018

Similarly, it would be entirely justified in finding that no argument in support of qualified immunity would protect the officer in the circumstances alleged from liability for … Under Massachusetts law, establishing a malicious prosecution claim requires proving malice, among other elements. Nieves v.

Harvard Law School Forum v. Shultz

633 F. Supp. 525 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Apr 18, 1986

Since the PLO Observer Mission in New York was established in 1974, its personnel have been subject to this geographic limitation. … However, this case does not involve a challenge to the recognition, nonrecognition or establishment of relations with a foreign government or entity.

Edwards v. Federal Goverment of Nigeria

District Court, D. Massachusetts · Dec 18, 2018

FSIA Immunity Generally All defendants contend that they are entitled to immunity under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (“FSIA”), 28 U.S.C. §§ 1602, et seq. … Nor has he established that the other requirements of the statute apply.

United States v. Patrick

6 F. Supp. 2d 51 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Apr 28, 1998

Koenig qualify as experts. … Dismissal of an indictment is appropriate only “if it is established that the violation substantially influenced the grand jury’s decision to indict, or if there is grave doubt” that the decision to indict was free from the

Davis v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts

District Court, D. Massachusetts · Apr 24, 2025

Clearly, then, the first two factors of the scope-of-employment test are satisfied. … “It is well-established that ‘only those individuals who participated in the conduct that deprived the plaintiff of his rights can be held liable.’” Velez-Rivera v.

Lobsters, Inc. v. Evans

346 F. Supp. 2d 340 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Nov 29, 2004

At the Daubert hearing, he heard from two qualified witnesses for the Agency and one qualified witness for plaintiffs and ruled that he was persuaded that Boatracs was reliable for reporting position data accurately 95% of … This is clearly not the point of limiting review to the administrative record.

Hartunian v. Sweeney

District Court, D. Massachusetts · Aug 29, 2022

Judicial immunity is an affirmative defense that may be raised by a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss “‘provided that the facts establishing the defense [are] clear on the face of the complaint.’” Zenon v. … Plaintiff argues that Clerks Gentile and Cignoli are not protected by quasi-judicial immunity because they “fabricated new facts and thereby have ‘committed fraud on the court,’” violating his clearly established rights

Eggert v. Merrimac Paper Co., Inc. Leveraged Employee Stock Ownership Plan and Trust

311 F. Supp. 2d 245 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Mar 31, 2004

Thus, the plaintiffs must qualify under one of the above-mentioned classes in order to have standing to bring an ERISA claim. … Accordingly, the task at hand is to determine whether the plaintiffs qualify as Plan “participants” within the meaning of ERISA; the plaintiffs clearly are not beneficiaries or fiduciaries. 4 A.

Hillstrom v. Best Western TLC Hotel

265 F. Supp. 2d 117 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · May 28, 2003

According to this framework, if a plaintiff succeeds in establishing a prima facie case of discrimination, a presumption of discrimination arises. … Nevertheless, the Act was clearly intended to provide such protection, and Department of Labor (DOL) regulations implementing the FMLA interpret the Act to prohibit such actions.

Reisch v. McGuigan

745 F. Supp. 56 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Aug 10, 1990

Following the above reasoning, the Pevo-ski Court determined that Massachusetts law should govern the issue of interspousal immunity in that case, because the Commonwealth was the domicile of the parties and “the economic … The parties have stipulated that plaintiffs’ medical costs exceed $60,000, establishing that the Regie, which only paid $30,000 to plaintiffs, is only a partial subrogee.

United States v. Lora

129 F. Supp. 2d 77 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Feb 20, 2001

I find Ruben qualifies for a three-level enhancement as a supervisor or manager. U.S.S.G. § 3Bl.l(b). … Clearly, a defendant’s available funds are an important consideration in light of Note 15’s purpose and text. 23 .

Newell v. Celadon Security Services, Inc.

417 F. Supp. 2d 85 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jan 17, 2006

It was clearly contrary to the best interest of Celadon to tolerate a situation where its personnel, who were hired to provide security, did not have access to backup help in case of an emergency. … In light of this court's conclusion that Koui-dri did not qualify as a supervisor, it will not address whether Celadon is entitled to assert the Faragher/Ellerth defense. 9 .

Guarino v. Metropolitan Life Insurance

915 F. Supp. 435 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Dec 7, 1995

It is well-established that Congress intended for ERISA’s civil enforcement remedies, 29 U.S.C. § 1132 (a)(1)(B), to be exclusive. … The statutes, 26 U.S.C. §§ 401 (a), 411 and 501(a), establish the requirements for a “qualified trust” pension plan, including minimum vesting standards, in order to reap favorable tax benefits. 7 Nevertheless, there is no

Pacific Ins. Co., Ltd. v. Eaton Vance Management

260 F. Supp. 2d 236 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Aug 14, 2002

BACKGROUND Eaton Vance and its predecessors have operated the Plan as a qualified profit sharing plan since the 1950s. 1 The Plan has been restated and amended on several occasions since its inception. 2 In July 1986, Eaton … Central States clearly interpreted this provision of ERISA to include identifying the Plan participants. 43 When it failed to recognize Hernandez and others as Plan participants, and failed to establish and fund retirement

Transwitch Corp. v. Galazar Networks, Inc.

377 F. Supp. 2d 284 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Mar 1, 2005

As to the non dispositive motion, the motion to amend, I conclude that the Magistrate Judge’s order is neither clearly erroneous or contrary to law under Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 72(a). … The burden is upon Galazar not only to establish the existence of jurisdiction at the time it filed the counterclaim in February 2003 but also to establish that jurisdiction “has continued since[] the time the counterclaim

Bunnell v. New England Teamsters & Trucking Industry Pension Fund

486 F. Supp. 714 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Mar 18, 1980

The trustees drafted the offensive Section 6 in 1973, frustrating the broad and clearly stated purposes of the Act, which has remained essentially unchanged since 1948. … had to quit and sue in 1974, then, if he ultimately lost after pursuing litigation (which required three years in this case) while receiving no income, he would have to return to work for another three years in order to qualify

Leja v. United States

490 F. Supp. 2d 83 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · May 16, 2007

Only when ignored issues are “clearly stronger than those presented, will the presumption of effective assistance of counsel be overcome.” Id. (citation omitted). … The decision made by well-qualified appellate counsel to prioritize Petitioner’s strongest arguments, while it did not lead to reversal, reflected no professional deficiencies even approaching the level of ineffective assistance

Drexler v. Tel Nexx, Inc.

125 F. Supp. 3d 361 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Aug 28, 2015

The FLSA places the burden of establishing the applicability of an exemption on the employer. Id. at 240. … The Department of Labor’s FLSA regulations establish a three-prong test for determining whether an employee qualifies under the, administrative exemption: The term “employee employed in a bona fide administrative capacity