Case law

Real Estate Bar Ass'n for Massachusetts, Inc. v. National Real Estate Information Services

642 F. Supp. 2d 58 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Aug 17, 2009

redaction, citing attorney-client communication, work product, or expert-related work product. 62 The unredacted portions of the invoices and K & L Gates’s nonprivileged descriptions of the redacted material are sufficient to establish … Parties not having briefed the issue of attorneys' fees at summary judgment, this court’s reconsideration of the issue is clearly proper. 6 . 42 U.S.C.A. § 1988 (West 2009) ("In any action or proceeding to enforce a provision

Eustace v. Springfield Public Schools

District Court, D. Massachusetts · May 30, 2023

Defendant argued that evidence, which was not disputed by Plaintiff, conclusively established that she was not a qualified individual. The court disagrees. … Certainly, a different jury could have accepted Defendant’s explanation, but the jury in this case clearly credited Plaintiff’s version of events since it found she remained qualified to perform the essential functions

Merced v. JLG Industries, Inc.

170 F. Supp. 2d 65 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Sep 28, 2001

L & L Fittings has never been registered, licensed or qualified by the Commonwealth to do business in Massachusetts. III. Discussion A. … Although clearly not dis-positive, L & L Fittings also enables its Massachusetts customers to purchase goods on its website and that site is, at least, a potential marketing tool in Massachusetts.

Perrot v. Kelly

District Court, D. Massachusetts · Oct 28, 2024

He contends that paragraph 19 of his Amended Complaint “clearly informed” defendants that he “sought to hold the City liable for ‘all torts’ committed by the individual Defendants pursuant to the doctrine of respondeat … “[I]t is well-established that municipalities are immune from suit under the MCRA as they are not ‘persons’ within the meaning of the MCRA.” Qualls v. Roache, Civil Action No. 23-10435-GAO, 2024 WL 1333610, at *2 (D.

Eustace v. Springfield Public Schools

District Court, D. Massachusetts · May 29, 2020

“could adopt a policy in favor of hiring the most qualified candidate such that a disabled employee could never rely on reassignment to establish the existence of a reasonable accommodation for purposes of his prima facie … qualified to do the job.

McQueen v. Druker

317 F. Supp. 1122 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Oct 5, 1970

In the state court defendants “intended to rely on the established State law that a tenant who holds over after the expiration of a lease may be evicted without cause.” … A tenant may remain, if not forever, at least until he misbehaves;- or he becomes rich, or the government adopts general rules under which he no longer qualifies.

A & W Maintenance, Inc. v. First Mercury Insurance

91 F. Supp. 3d 113 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Mar 17, 2015

Considering that the exception is contained within the same section of the contract that, provides for coverage, the burden of proof of establishing coverage is upon A & W — the plaintiff seeking to establish coverage. … Hart qualifies as an additional insured, and thus fits the definition of an insured as amended by Section II.

Smith v. Mitre Corp.

949 F. Supp. 943 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jan 3, 1997

There are some things that are clearly within the public policy exception.. … Having decided that some whistle-blowers, even if they have not complained to outside authorities, can qualify for the public policy exception, the court must now determine whether whistleblowing in this ease, involving alleged

Ing v. Tufts University

District Court, D. Massachusetts · Oct 13, 2022

A plaintiff establishes a prima facie case of sex discrimination by showing that “(1) she is a member of a protected class, (2) she was qualified for an open position for which she applied, (3) she was rejected, and ( … Wolff, that she was not qualified for a promotion. Dr.

Society of the Holy Transfiguration Monastery, Inc. v. Archbishop Gregory

685 F. Supp. 2d 217 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Feb 18, 2010

The Monastery’s proffered evidence, including the uncontested copyright registration certificate, clearly and convincingly indicates the opposite. 11 The Archbishop next claims that he signed the Agreement under the duress … “Our prior discussion establishes that the scope of fair use is narrower with respect to unpublished works....

Sun Capital Partners III, LP v. New England Teamsters & Trucking Industry Pension Fund

903 F. Supp. 2d 107 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Oct 18, 2012

Even taken in the light most favorable to the Pension Fund, the record establishes that the Sun Funds are not a “trade or business.” … This result clearly conflicts with the congressional purpose of ensuring financially sound multiemployer pension plans. Cf. 29 U.S.C. § 1001a (MPPAA congressional policy statement).

Alfonso v. Aufiero

66 F. Supp. 2d 183 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Sep 7, 1999

The parties agree that plaintiffs satisfy the relatively low threshold required to qualify for “prevailing party” status. See, e.g., Farrar v. … , it required very little additional briefing or evidentiary time to establish).

Riley v. Decoulos (In Re American Bridge Products, Inc.)

398 B.R. 724 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jan 8, 2009

BAP 2000) (chronicling cases where pre-filing expenses, including receiver’s compensation, qualify as administrative expenses), overruled on other grounds In re Weinstein, 272 F.3d 39 (1st Cir.2001). … Given the bankruptcy court’s meticulous explanation of how it determined each of the damage figures, the court was certainly not clearly erroneous in concluding that there were sufficient facts to establish that De-coulos

Grant v. Ross

District Court, D. Massachusetts · Dec 19, 2018

the court “shall dismiss the case . . . if the court determines that - . . . the action or appeal . . . fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted[] or . . . seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune … In order to secure injunctive relief, Grant must establish that she is likely to succeed on her claim.

Ruffino v. State Street Bank and Trust Co.

908 F. Supp. 1019 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Nov 29, 1995

A cause of action for wrongful termination has been recognized in a defined set of circumstances, including where a termination violated a clearly established public policy. E.g., King v. … Clearly that is not the case here.

United States v. Three Juveniles

886 F. Supp. 934 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · May 1, 1995

Another leader was Michael Rasnick, age twenty-five, who was an immunized cooperating witness at the trial of the juveniles. Rasnick was a self-avowed white supremacist and separatist. … any of the aforesaid establishments; and (ii) which holds itself out as serving patrons of such establishments.”

In re Boston Scientific Corp. Erisa Litigation

254 F.R.D. 24 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Nov 3, 2008

A majority of Circuits has agreed that cashed-out former employees may still qualify as participants with statutory standing. … The interest is clearly not represented by existing parties because the two remaining Plaintiffs have no standing to represent the class.

STATE POLICE FOR AUTOMATIC RETIREMENT v. Difava

164 F. Supp. 2d 141 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Sep 5, 2001

The Court also allowed the State defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint on qualified immunity grounds, with prejudice, insofar as the plaintiffs sought monetary damages. ( Id. ) SPARA amended its complaint two more times … Com., 373 Mass. 359, 366 , 366 N.E.2d 1262 (1977) (stating that such discretion is necessary to "establish[] and sustain[] uniform and consistent legal policy for the Commonwealth.").

Katz v. Pershing, LLC

806 F. Supp. 2d 452 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Aug 23, 2011

“Future injury must be imminent to qualify as injury-in-fact” to ensure that the “alleged injury is not too speculative.” Sea Shore Corp. v. Sullivan, 158 F.3d 51, 56 (1st Cir.1998). … In this last regard, Pershing notes that its Clearing Agreement with NPC clearly states that the agreement is “not intended to confer any benefits on third-parties including, but not limited to, customers of [NPC].”

Semedo v. Medeiros

District Court, D. Massachusetts · Apr 9, 2019

The petitioner must show that the state court’s decision was either “contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States” or … In the absence of “clearly established” federal law, granting habeas relief is not authorized. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d); see Carey v. Musladin, 549 U.S. 70, 77 (2006). III.