Case law

Shorey v. Rennell

22 F. Cas. 1 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Apr 15, 1858

I must presume that they really thought it necessary, in order to protect the mate and suppress a mutiny; but the evidence clearly shows that no such necessity existed. … I have stated the facts, which, after careful examination, I think are established by the evidence.

Stein v. Smith

270 F. Supp. 2d 157 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jul 3, 2003

. § 1102 (a)(1) (requiring every plan qualified under ERISA to have at least one “named fiduciary”); 29 U.S.C. § 1002 (21)(A) (enumerating activities resulting in what has been described as “functional fiduciary” status). … ERISA fiduciaries also have a duty to diversify the investments of the plan in question “so as to minimize the risk of large losses, unless under the circumstances it is clearly prudent not to do so,” and to manage the plan

Johnson v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp.

122 F. Supp. 2d 194 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Nov 8, 2000

Accordingly, the failure to warn claim is clearly preempted by the 1969 Act. … The fraud count of Johnson’s complaint (Count IV) does not clearly proceed under either fraud theory.

Moradi v. Morgan

District Court, D. Massachusetts · Mar 22, 2021

The affidavit asserts that requesters “usually specify as such clearly in the request.” Id. … “A predecisional document will qualify as ‘deliberative’ provided it (i) formed an essential link in a specified consultative process, (ii) ‘reflect[s] the personal opinions of the writer rather than the policy of the

Estados Unidos Mexicanos v. Smith & Wesson Brands, Inc.

District Court, D. Massachusetts · Sep 30, 2022

First, the exception clearly does not apply to the seven defendants who are manufacturers of firearms. … Ganim are clearly analogous to those here.

Resendes v. Astrue

780 F. Supp. 2d 125 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Feb 17, 2011

She noted that the evidence presented in Resendes’ medical records did not establish the presence of “C” criteria. 8 Id. at 236 . Apart from depression and anxiety, Dr. … The ALJ’s judgments on such matters should be given substantial deference, provided that his opinion clearly states specific reasons for reaching his conclusion. Becker v.

United States v. Volungus

599 F. Supp. 2d 68 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Feb 27, 2009

Here, as in those cases, the first two categories of permissible regulation under the Commerce Clause are clearly inapplicable. … Substituting a therapeutic commitment for a punitive one is a policy choice that is clearly within Congress’s power to make.

Watkins v. Chau

District Court, D. Massachusetts · Sep 4, 2025

“To prevail on such a reasonable accommodation claim, a plaintiff must show a qualifying handicap, the defendant’s actual or constructive knowledge of that 3 Despite the overt references to the ADA, the claim clearly … Following through on those threats, in any case, clearly constitutes an adverse action because Watkins relies on her Section 8 voucher to pay rent. ECF 1, at 12; see Taylor v.

Toland v. McCarthy

499 F. Supp. 1183 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Feb 27, 1980

By. letter of October 28, 1975, the Fund Manager advised plaintiff: “You do not qualify for a pension from this Fund for the following reasons: You were not in Covered Employment and have less than 15 years of Credited Service … This is clearly the significance of the requirement in both statutes that courts consider the whole record. . .. Id. at 487-88 , 71 S.Ct. at 464-465 .

In re Smith & Wesson Holding Corp. Sec. Litig.

836 F. Supp. 2d 1 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Mar 25, 2011

But CFO Kelly’s statement, when read in context, is clearly directed at a particular area of production. … In fact, the September press release and conference call were clearly directed at Smith & Wesson’s first quarter results.

Hebert v. Department of Developmental Services

District Court, D. Massachusetts · Feb 3, 2025

Madoff’s knowledge, skill, experience and training qualify him as an expert capable of offering an opinion about the efficacy of vaccines. See Da Silva v. Am. … The Bureau’s Immunization Division was primarily responsible “for coordination with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (‘CDC’) on vaccines including COVID-19 vaccines.” [Id. at ¶ 5].

Quincy Mutual Fire Insurance Company v. Atlantic Specialty Insurance Company

District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jul 29, 2019

Atlantic’s third argument, that statements and conduct of attorneys are immune from Chapter 93A liability, fares no better. … It is unlikely that the immunity Massachusetts provides attorneys extends to immunize Atlantic, but the issue is fact-specific and need not be definitively resolved at this stage.5

Kirby v. Cullinet Software, Inc.

116 F.R.D. 303 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jun 18, 1987

These “questions are illustrative rather than exhaustive, but establish the existence of the commonality required by Rule 23.” Berenson, 100 F.R.D. at 470 . C. … Class counsel are qualified and experienced, and based on the briefs and arguments so far, class counsel appear vigorous. IV.

United States ex rel. Winkelman v. CVS Caremark Corp.

118 F. Supp. 3d 412 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jul 29, 2015

[courts] inquire *421 whether Congress has clearly stated that the rule is jurisdictional” (citation and internal quotation mark omitted)). … Warden, 635 F.3d 866 (7th Cir.2011), to argue that they qualify as "original sources.” D. 67 at 16.

In re Pharmaceutical Industry Average Wholesale Price Litigation

509 F. Supp. 2d 82 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Sep 17, 2007

The defendant bears the burden of establishing the existence of federal jurisdiction. BIW Deceived v. Local S6, 132 F.3d 824, 831 (1st Cir.1997). … Henson, 537 U.S. 28, 34 , 123 S.Ct. 366 , 154 L.Ed.2d 368 (2002) (“[a]ncillary jurisdiction ... cannot provide the original jurisdiction that petitioners must show in order to qualify for removal under § 1441”).

Conservation Law Foundation v. Massachusetts Water Resources Authority

District Court, D. Massachusetts · Feb 17, 2023

Once a TMDL is established, it is submitted to the EPA for approval. Id. § 1313(d)(2). The CWA also establishes a permitting system for the discharge of pollutants from point sources. … (Dkt immunity bars suits against government agencies and their officials. Commonwealth of Puerto Rico v. United States, 490 F.3d 50, 57 (1st Cir. 2007).

Atlantech Inc. v. American Panel Corp.

540 F. Supp. 2d 274 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Mar 24, 2008

C.Breach of Agreements Second, APC has clearly breached the terms of the 1040-100 MOA and incorporated agreements. … Damages Lastly, Atlantech has established damages as a result of APC’s breach of the 1040-100 MOA and incorporated agreements.

United States v. Green

372 F. Supp. 2d 168 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jun 2, 2005

The Court wrote: As the State contends, once the government establishes any aggravating factor, a defendant becomes ‘death eligible’ in the strict sense, and establishing additional aggravating factors does not render a defendant … The burden of establishing the existence of any aggravating factor is on the government, and is not satisfied unless the existence of such a factor is established beyond a reasonable doubt. 18 U.S.C. § 3593 (c). 8 .

Savage v. City of Springfield

District Court, D. Massachusetts · Mar 8, 2021

Even though the Deputy Fire Chief examination was canceled after the fact, Savage’s score was sufficient to qualify him for a District Chief position (id. at ¶ 44). … Because Plaintiffs could not have received their right-to-sue letters before they were issued, Plaintiffs have clearly met the ninety-day statute of limitations.

Guevara-Salgado v. Hayes-Meninno, LLC

125 F. Supp. 3d 379 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Aug 31, 2015

As detailed more fully below, there is sufficient evidence-at this stage to establish that Wendy qualifies as Guevara’s employer for purposes of the wage and hours laws. Overview of Plaintiffs Claims .. … “The burden is on [the employer] to establish these three elements, and it must establish each element.” Awuah v. Coverall N. Am., Inc., 707 F.Supp.2d 80, 82 (D.Mass.2010).