Case law

Arias v. City of Everett

District Court, D. Massachusetts · Dec 4, 2019

“Exclusivity is an important qualifier, and its presence severely limits the range of eligible activities. … Immunity and Municipal Liability Finally, the Municipal Defendants argue that their liability is restricted on the basis of qualified immunity and the limits of municipal liability.

Campbell v. BankBoston, N.A.

206 F. Supp. 2d 70 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · May 17, 2002

Polaroid Corp., 985 F.2d 13, 14 (1st Cir.1993) (ERISA governs qualified retirement plans). … There is no clearly established public policy at play here. See King v. Driscoll, 418 Mass. 576, 582 , 638 N.E.2d 488, 492 (1994).

Benner v. Alves

District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jan 25, 2022

Under the Eleventh Amendment to the Constitution, “[s]tates and their agencies are entitled to sovereign immunity ‘regardless of the relief sought.’” Poirier v. … “It is well established that the Constitution does not guarantee that a ‘prisoner will be placed in any particular prison.’” Schofield v. Clarke, 769 F. Supp. 2d 42, 49 (D.

Guiney v. Roache

654 F. Supp. 1287 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Mar 6, 1987

It is established to help combat the national epidemic in the illicit use of drugs and to combat illegal trafficking in drugs. … The record in this case is inadequate even to identify all such issues, and the more clearly inadequate to frame the questions of state law to be answered.

Librera v. United States

718 F. Supp. 111 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Aug 24, 1989

The general policy regarding the tort liability of the United States has been clearly stated by Congress in at least two separate statutes. 28 U.S.C. § 1346 (b) states that: [sjubject to the provisions of chapter 171 [ 28 … Our position leaves untouched the immunity of the United States from liability for the negligent acts of an employee of an independent contractor.

Dennis v. Wachovia Securities, LLC

429 F. Supp. 2d 281 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Mar 31, 2006

Wachovia argues, however, that it relied on the cross-examination of the expert, which showed serious flaws in the expert’s analysis, as well as the testimony of Ewanouski who was qualified to testify about the suitability … Tanner, 72 F.3d at 240-41 (where contested issue was clearly presented to the arbitrators, and arbitrators declined to give their reason for their conclusions, plaintiff failed to establish that the arbitrators knew yet disregarded

In re JPMorgan Chase Mortgage Modification Litigation

880 F. Supp. 2d 220 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jul 27, 2012

The law in California, New Jersey, and Washington with respect to estoppel claims is similar enough (for present purposes) to merge the analysis. 39 Although the forbearance agreements clearly instruct borrowers to contact … Through HOLA, Congress established the OTS to prescribe regulations for thrifts. 12 U.S.C. § 1462a.

Haraden

District Court, D. Massachusetts · Sep 10, 2026

Plaintiff expressed interest in re- establishing rheumatology care, so Dr. … and for establishing a right to lump-sum death payment.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1(h).

Gaines v. Matesanz

272 F. Supp. 2d 121 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jul 22, 2003

A review under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 first requires a federal court to determine whether there was “clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States” at the time the state court conviction … Relief may be granted if the state court decision was “contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of’ such clearly established Federal law. Id. at 384 , 120 S.Ct. at 1508 .

Goldman v. Feinman (In Re Goldman)

192 B.R. 1 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jan 18, 1996

At the same time, the last sentence, qualifying the exemption of this third category, was added. 1992 Mass. Acts c. 153, § 30. Goldman’s argument as to the amendments’ significance is not completely clear. … Moreover, at the same time as the IRA language moved to a clearly distinct phrase, the Legislature added the income limitation sentence following that phrase.

Goldstein v. Brigham & Women's Faulkner Hospital, Inc.

80 F. Supp. 3d 317 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jan 23, 2015

Chapter 151B clearly requires that a lawsuit must be filed within three years of the alleged unlawful practice, even if the MCAD has not finished its review of the related complaint. Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 151B, § 9. … Goldstein separately contends that the denial of her requests to Mazaka for more hours to qualify for full employer contributions to her benefits was a discriminatory decision.

Trent Partners & Associates, Inc. v. Digital Equipment Corp.

120 F. Supp. 2d 84 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Dec 22, 1999

It would be hard to imagine a statement that more clearly shows that Keller’s oral representations would not be legally binding. … By their very terms both of these elements clearly fall into “established common law ... concepts] of unfairness.” VMark, 37 Mass. App. Ct. at 620, 642 N.E.2d 587 .

McCullen v. Coakley

573 F. Supp. 2d 382 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Aug 22, 2008

That’s a legitimate interest of the government.” 201 Having found qualifying governmental interests, this court now determines that the law is narrowly tailored to serve those interests. … A Status Conference shall be held to establish a discovery schedule and trial date. IT IS SO ORDERED. 1 .

Rhone v. Energy North, Inc.

790 F. Supp. 353 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Dec 27, 1991

Rhone’s pleadings, however, clearly go beyond merely alleging that Black and Schroeder are officers of Energy. … It qualified this statement, however, by noting that not all corporate wrongdoing would be covered by section 1962(a): “[s]ubsection (a) requires a showing of the source of income and proof that funds were channeled into

Steinhilber v. McCarthy

26 F. Supp. 2d 265 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Nov 3, 1998

In other words, the jury’s verdict that Carol Steinhilber failed in her burden of establishing that Dr. … Ordinarily, what the average qualified specialist knew or reasonably should have known is established with expert testimony. Harnish v. Children’s Hospital Medical Center, 439 N.E.2d at 243 . The expert testimony of Dr.

Kartell v. Blue Shield of Massachusetts, Inc.

582 F. Supp. 734 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Mar 22, 1984

Is Blue Shield of Massachusetts, Inc. compelled by M.G.L. c. 176B, § 7 or any other Massachusetts statute or required by any clearly articulated and affirmatively expressed State policy (a) to limit fees of participating … Brown, supra, immunizes most of the challenged conduct from antitrust attack. Kartell v. Blue Shield of Massachusetts, Inc., 542 F.Supp. 782 (D.Mass.1982).

Martino v. American Airlines Federal Credit Union

121 F. Supp. 3d 277 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Aug 18, 2015

AAFCU filed an opposition ■ and cross-moved for summary judgment establishing that it has no liability. … For a security interest to qualify for the exception under section 226.12(d)(2) the following conditions must be met: i.

Marriott v. Sedco Forex International Resources, Ltd.

827 F. Supp. 59 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jul 22, 1993

Sedeo, although a British Virgin Islands corporation, clearly has some connection to the United States. … by the alternative forum is [not] so clearly inadequate or unsatisfactory that it is no remedy at all.”

Bricklayers & Trowel Trades International Pension Fund v. Credit Suisse First Boston

853 F. Supp. 2d 181 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jan 13, 2012

To qualify as a corrective disclosure in this case, information released to the market must pertain to at least one of the foregoing topics about which defendants allegedly concealed information. See Lentell v. … circumstances: if the moving party presents newly discovered evidence, if there has been an intervening change in the law, or if the movant can demonstrate that the original decision was based on a manifest error of law or was clearly

United States v. Carpenter

405 F. Supp. 2d 85 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Dec 15, 2005

Local Rule 116.2 (captioned “Disclosure of Exculpatory Evidence”) establishes a timetable for the disclosure by the government of potentially exculpatory material. … Q: "No immunity agreement?” A: "No.” Q: "No promise you wouldn’t be prosecuted?” A: "No agreement.”). In its opposition to the Rule 33 motion, the government reiterated this position.