Case law

Grafton & Upton Railroad Company v. Town of Hopedale

District Court, D. Massachusetts · Mar 31, 2023

Consistent with this policy, the ICCTA established the Surface Transportation Board (“STB”) within the Department of Transportation, see Pub. … or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities

In Re Computervision Corp. Securities Litigation

869 F. Supp. 56 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Nov 22, 1994

These are clearly allegations of fraud perpetrated on the investing public, so the particularity requirements of Rule 9(b) apply. … Litig., 832 F.Supp. 948, 987 (W.D.Pa.1993) (dismissal of § 12(2) claim warranted where insufficient facts alleged establishing that each defendant sold or solicited the sale of securities to individual plaintiffs).

Bourassa v. Masscor Optical Industries

District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jan 13, 2020

Even construing this allegation generously, it fails to plausibly establish entitlement to relief for cruel and unusual punishment, intentional infliction of emotional distress, or failure to protect. … See Bock, 549 U.S. at 217–18. 4 The Court declines Defendants’ invitation to rule on summary judgment or the applicability of a qualified immunity defense at this stage in the proceedings.

Crane v. City of Chicopee

District Court, D. Massachusetts · Sep 20, 2024

In an alternative argument, they also assert that their actions were protected by qualified immunity. … immunity.”

In re M3 Power Razor System Marketing & Sales Practice Litigation

270 F.R.D. 45 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Aug 6, 2010

locating, much less joining individually as plaintiffs, all of the potential class members. 7 Given the large number of potential class members, and the relatively small claim each one has for damages, individual lawsuits are clearly … All plaintiffs have the motivation to establish the same factual and legal findings and conclusions regarding Gillette’s conduct.

United States v. Nippon Paper Industries Co., Ltd.

62 F. Supp. 2d 173 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jul 16, 1999

The defense insisted that the co-conspirators under the rule had to be either named in the indictment, or had to have qualified for that designation under the substantive law of conspiracy. … Since the Japanese trading houses would not have qualified under Monsanto Company v.

Benham v. Lenox Savings Bank

118 F. Supp. 2d 132 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Nov 3, 2000

First, plaintiff must establish by a preponderance of the evidence a prima facie case that she (1) is entitled to ERISA’s protection, (2) was qualified for the position, and (3) was discharged under circumstances that give … Second, Benham was clearly qualified for the position she held. She had been working at the Bank full time for over twenty years. Since 1986 she had held positions of authority at the Bank.

Milward v. Acuity Specialty Products Group, Inc.

969 F. Supp. 2d 101 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Sep 6, 2013

R.Evid. 702, which provides: A witness who is qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education may testify in the form of *105 an opinion or otherwise if: (a) the expert’s scientific, technical … This case clearly calls for an expert witness to “explain and assist in the application” of conflicting strands of scientific literature. Fed.R.Evid. 803(18) advisory committee note; see also Anderson v.

Brewster v. Dukakis

520 F. Supp. 882 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Aug 19, 1981

A shorthand definition of the plaintiff class then might be: all persons in the western third of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts with mental health needs severe enough to qualify them for potential hospitalization. … Clearly, the final sentence of paragraph 59 was intended to impose an additional task on the defendants, not define their exclusive responsibility.

U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission v. Wilson

19 F. Supp. 3d 352 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · May 16, 2014

Rep. ¶ 26,262 , 1994 WL 621595 at *7 (CFTC Nov. 8, 1994) (“Although scienter must be proved to establish a violation of section [6]b and section [6]o(l)(A), it is not necessary to establish a violation of section [6]o(l)( … “Motions under Rule 59(e) must either clearly establish a manifest error of law or must present newly discovered evidence.” F.D.I.C. v. World Univ. Inc., 978 F.2d 10, 16 (1st Cir.1992).

United States v. Winston

492 F. Supp. 2d 15 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jun 25, 2007

The court, however, set the date for the status conference for March 28, 2007, unknowingly but clearly putting the case outside the seventy-day Speedy Trial period. … Consultation revealed that Defendant had become qualified for appointed counsel, and defense counsel accepted an appointment under the Criminal Justice Act. See 18 U.S.C. § 3006A (a)-(c).

Boston Scientific Corp. v. Schneider (Europe) AG

983 F. Supp. 245 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Oct 23, 1997

Look, 641 F.2d 32, 38 (1st Cir.1981)), “invocation of antitrust terms of art does not confer immunity from a motion to dismiss,” Car Carriers, Inc. v. … The Supreme Court has outlined a two-tiered inquiry to establish when the “sham litigation” exception applies.

Seklecki v. Centers for Disease Control & Prevention

District Court, D. Massachusetts · Oct 12, 2022

Federal law prohibits two or more persons from conspiring to deprive “any person or class of persons of the equal protection of the laws, or of equal privileges and immunities under … A claimant under section 1985(3) must establish “some racial, or perhaps otherwise class- based, invidiously discriminatory animus behind the conspirators’ actions.”

LeBlanc v. Duval

900 F. Supp. 538 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Sep 27, 1995

As the DeJoinville Court noted, Sandstrom relied on a number of prior Supreme Court cases, none of which, by themselves, would have clearly barred the contested instruction. … The first exception, concerning rules affecting private conduct, is clearly inapplicable. The second exception, however, presents a closer issue.

Crane Security Technologies, Inc. v. Rolling Optics, AB

230 F. Supp. 3d 10 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Feb 3, 2017

Communications must “have been intended to be confidential and made for the purpose of giving or obtaining legal advice” to qualify as privileged. Cavallaro, 284 F.3d at 245 . … These clearly are protected by the attorney-client privilege.

Dambreville v. City of Boston

945 F. Supp. 384 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Nov 21, 1996

When an interested witness has given clear answers to unambiguous questions, he cannot create a conflict and resist summary judgment with an affidavit that is clearly contradictory, but does not give a satisfactory explanation … The types of decisions typically made by clerical workers would not qualify as an exercise of discretion or independent judgment under the Act. 29 C.F.R. § 541.207 (d)(2).

Holmes Products Corp. v. Dana Lighting, Inc.

958 F. Supp. 27 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Mar 19, 1997

Holmes established its “Lighting by Holmes” Division in 1992 for the purpose of developing and selling a full line of lamps. … Here Holmes cannot establish such a causal nexus.

United States v. Fulton

960 F. Supp. 479 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Mar 18, 1997

United States Sentencing Commission; establishment and purposes (a) There is established as an independent commission in the judicial branch of the United States a United States Sentencing Commission.... *487 (b) The purposes … Second, the defendant’s conduct was aberrant in the sense that qualifies for downward departure under United States v. Grandmaison, 77 F.3d 555 (1st Cir.1996).

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Jaaskelainen

407 B.R. 449 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · May 28, 2009

Second, it reviews de novo the legal determination that Appellants do not qualify for the bona fide error defense. 1. … Therefore, the court’s determination that Debtors did not receive sufficient copies of the NOR was not clearly erroneous. 2.

Peoples Super Liquor Stores, Inc. v. Jenkins

432 F. Supp. 2d 200 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · May 8, 2006

Grendel’s Den, Inc., 459 U.S. 116 , 122 n. 5, 103 S.Ct. 505 , 74 L.Ed.2d 297 (1982) (Establishment Clause); Craig v. … In Healy , Justice Scalia noted in his concurrence that the statute’s “invalidity is fully established by its facial discrimination against interstate commerce,” and that this “discriminatory character eliminates the immunity