Case law

Glazer Const. Co., Inc. v. United States

50 F. Supp. 2d 85 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · May 25, 1999

Because there was clearly a BAA violation in this case, debarment was the only appropriate result. … For ex *92 ample, by adding $180.00 of labor to one steel component’s value ($51.93), Glazer concluded that the manufactured steel qualified as “domestic construction material.”

Aldrich v. MacEachern

District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jan 23, 2018

A state court decision is an “unreasonable application” of clearly established federal law “if it correctly identifies the governing legal rule but applies that rule unreasonably to the facts of a particular prisoner’s … The Court cannot conclude that the state court decision was “contrary to” or “an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law,” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1), if there was no federal law at issue.

Mendes v. WinnCompanies LLC

District Court, D. Massachusetts · Dec 14, 2023

These actions were clearly related to Kuppens’ position as plaintiff’s supervisor and taken in furtherance of their employer’s interest. … In addition to establishing that she is handicapped, plaintiff must establish that she was a “qualified handicapped person”—that is, that she was “capable of performing the essential functions of the position involved with

Doucette v. Jacobs

District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jul 12, 2022

While she was clearly frustrated and unhappy with the ESY program and B.D.’s progress, or lack thereof, Ms. … Moreover, the statute does not allow recovery 28 In light of this ruling the court declines to address the other arguments raised by the defendants, including, without limitation, qualified immunity and statute of limitations

United States v. Michael Schiavone & Sons, Inc.

304 F. Supp. 773 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jun 30, 1969

. § 41 (3), these facts clearly appear. Both parties knew the premises conveyed were in better physical condition than when defendant, as lessee, undertook to improve them. … Both parties offered the opinions of qualified witnesses on the issue of fair market value, and there was also evidence of the selling prices of other parcels on the Boston water front.

Morris v. Boston Edison Co.

942 F. Supp. 65 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Oct 7, 1996

City of Topeka, 884 F.Supp. 1494, 1503 (D.Kan.1995) (“An informal complaint to management qualifies as protected activity.”) … Worcester Foundation, 545 F.2d 222 (1 Cir.1976), the court stated that “... section 704(a) 12 clearly does protect an employee against discharge for filing complaints in good faith before federal and state agencies and for

Chimko v. Lucas (In Re Lucas)

317 B.R. 195 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Sep 30, 2004

For this reason, Chimko urged, “[i]t was clearly an erroneous finding to determine that the notice was misleading.” Id. … Here, the governing federal law clearly contemplates representation by nonlawyer agents.

Bose Corp. v. JBL, Inc.

112 F. Supp. 2d 138 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Aug 31, 2000

But since neither Townshend nor Davies was sure of the structure of the port in Davies’ speakers at that time, it was not clearly established which version of the Glastonbury II Townshend was trying to sell to Roberts. … First, JBL continued to sell clearly infringing products after receiving notice of the issuance of the patent.

Diaz v. Devlin

District Court, D. Massachusetts · Apr 3, 2018

“The party seeking work product protection has the burden of establishing its applicability.” In re Grand Jury Subpoena, 220 F.R.D. at 140. … Ordinary work product receives only qualified protection.

Lynch v. King

550 F. Supp. 325 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Sep 20, 1982

The requirements imposed on the Commonwealth by 42 U.S.C. §§ 671 (a)(16) and 675(1), (5)(B) are spelled out rather clearly in sections 675(1), (5)(B). … The case review requirements are clearly defined.

Perkins v. Alves

District Court, D. Massachusetts · Aug 14, 2023

Under this standard, courts in the First Circuit consider whether there is “any ‘clearly established’ Supreme Court precedent” contrary to the evidentiary ruling below. Gomes, 958 F.3d at 25. … Thus, their admission did not violate clearly established Supreme Court law under Crawford.

DiMare v. RealtyTrac, Inc.

714 F. Supp. 2d 199 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Mar 25, 2010

Accordingly, plaintiff cannot establish the elements of a claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress. C. … The third count, which is labeled "injunction,” is clearly a prayer for relief, not a theory of recovery. 2 . Available at RealtyTrac’s "About Us” web page, http://www.realtytrac.com/company/ backgrounder.html. 3 .

Tian v. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services

District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jan 3, 2025

in which a plaintiff seeks to proceed without prepayment of fees if the complaint is malicious, frivolous, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune … Mass. 2007) (Here, in the absence of a clearly established duty to act on a naturalization petition within a prescribed period of time, the court agrees with those of its sister courts that have held that [section 1361]

United States v. Scott

27 F. Cas. 990 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jun 15, 1851

citizenship protected the holder from being thus*dealt with was, doubtless, because the constitution, which she had just before sanctioned, declared that “the citizens of each state shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities … Justice Story (page 622), we find the following decisive language: “We hold the act to be clearly constitutional in all its leading provisions, and, indeed, with the exception of that part which confers authority upon state

Wyse v. Summers

100 F. Supp. 2d 69 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jun 15, 2000

Clearly, at any point during this time Complainant could have entered the EEO counseling process. … Generally speaking, in a race discrimination claim this requires the plaintiff to establish that: (1) he was a member of a protected class; (2) he was subject to an adverse employment action; (3) he was qualified for the

Globe Newspaper Co. v. Fenton

819 F. Supp. 89 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Mar 29, 1993

A year later the Supreme Court of the United States struck a balance more clearly favoring First Amendment access as opposed to privacy interests in the conduct of criminal proceedings. Richmond Newspapers, Inc. v. … It was Justice Frankfurter who admonished that “[jjudges as persons, or courts as institutions, are entitled to no greater immunity from criticism than other persons or institutions ...

NewRiver, Inc. v. NEWKIRK PRODUCTS, INC.

674 F. Supp. 2d 320 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Dec 16, 2009

John Deere Co. of Kansas City, 383 U.S. 1, 17-18 , 86 S.Ct. 684 , 15 L.Ed.2d 545 (1966), the Supreme Court established the framework for determining obviousness under the section 103 analysis. … NewRiver asserts that its expert testimony was sufficient to establish infringement under the doctrine of equivalents. Although NewRiver’s expert, Dr.

Holmes v. Carpenter Training Center

District Court, D. Massachusetts · Apr 25, 2019

Consequently, a plaintiff who seeks to bring her suit in a federal forum bears the burden of establishing that the federal court has subject-matter jurisdiction. … If Holmes wishes to pursue this action, she must file an amended complaint that clearly identifies what each defendant did wrong and the legal claim against each party.

Flores-Powell v. Chadbourne

677 F. Supp. 2d 455 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jan 7, 2010

Morgan, 670 F.Supp.2d 116, 121-23 , 2009 WL 4049143, at *4-5 (D.Mass.2009) (collecting cases regarding futility and concluding that “the BIA has clearly and repeatedly upheld the denial of a bond hearing under the view that … In Tavares , the habeas claim was moot, a related civil rights claim was barred by sovereign immunity, and the petitioner conceded that he was subject to mandatory detention pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226 (c) because he was

Optos, Inc. v. TOPCON MEDICAL SYSTEMS, INC.

777 F. Supp. 2d 217 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Mar 7, 2011

While California law, per section 16600, clearly invalidates non-competition clauses as a general matter, Edwards v. … This in-forum injury is clearly related to Optos’ tortious interference claim.