Case law

Govoni v. Bricklayers, Masons & Plasterers International Union of America, Local No. 5

573 F. Supp. 82 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Oct 19, 1983

See, e.g., Burroughs v. Board of Trustees, 9 Cir.1976, 542 F.2d 1128 , cert, den., 429 U.S. 1096 , 97 S.Ct. 1113 , 51 L.Ed.2d 543 . … He cites Snyder v.

Piscataqua Nav. Co. v. New York, N. H. & H. R. Co.

89 F. 362 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Sep 22, 1898

BROWN, District Judge. This libel is for damages for the detention of several vessels, through the obstruction of Ft. Point Channel, in Boston Harbor,: by the fall of a draw in a railroad bridge. … The doctrine of Rose v. Miles was adopt-en! in Greasly v.

In Re Pharmaceutical Industry Ave. Wholesale Price

685 F. Supp. 2d 186 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Feb 9, 2010

Brown, Brown, Buchanan & Sessoms, PA, Robert W. Wilkinson, Dogan & Wilkinson, PLLC, Pascagoula, MS, Ronald G. … Luther v. Consol. Indus., Inc., 720 F.Supp. 919, 922 (N.D.Ala. 1989); United States v. Rapoport, 514 F.Supp. 519, 523 (S.D.N.Y.1981); Fleming v.

The Mary Doane

16 F. Cas. 972 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Sep 15, 1875

It is not denied that the libellants complied with the statute in their use of the fog-horn, though the sound does not appear to have been heard on board the Mary Doane. … This ruling was affirmed in the circuit court: Swift v. Brownell [Id. 13,695].

Woodbridge v. The City of Greenfield

District Court, D. Massachusetts · May 29, 2024

Ocasio-Hernàndez v. … See Heacock v.

Terry Steam Turbine Co. v. B. F. Sturtevant Co.

204 F. 103 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Mar 15, 1913

See Stuart v. Hayden, 72 Fed. 402, 410 , 18 C. C. A. 618 ; Id., 169 U. S. 1 , 18 Sup. Ct. 274, 42 L. Ed. 639 . … See Stonemetz, etc., Co. v. Brown, etc., Co. (C. C.) 46 Fed. 851, 852 . The petition for leave to file the proposed supplemental answer is therefore denied.

Rea v. Cutler

20 F. Cas. 344 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · May 15, 1846

Co. v. Ashby. … stated, otherwise, that the *345 peril sought to be avoided, was that of drifting, stern foremost, on a rocky point, projecting far into the sea, and far from high-water mark, and where, if the vessel had struck, all on board

Loan v. Federal Deposit Ins. Corp.

717 F. Supp. 964 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Aug 8, 1989

William Wes-ter, the bank’s former President, Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the bank’s board of directors; 3) Robert F. … Fredo, Jr., the bank’s former Senior Vice President and Senior Lending Officer; and 4) the bank’s board of directors.

Poeuv v. Smith

169 F. Supp. 3d 297 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Mar 11, 2016

See 8 U.S.C. § 1231 (a)(2); Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 683 , 121 S.Ct. 2491 , 150 L.Ed.2d 653 (2001). … Brown v. Gillen, No. 10CV11304, 2010 WL 3946318 , at *2 (D.Mass. Oct. 8, 2010) (quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1231 (a)(6)).

EMC Corp. v. Chevedden

4 F. Supp. 3d 330 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Mar 16, 2014

In its letter to EMC, the SEC stated: The proposal requests that the board adopt a policy, and amend other governing documents as necessary to reflect that policy, to require the chair of the board of directors to be an independent … member of the board.

American Paper Recycling Corp. v. IHC CORP.

707 F. Supp. 2d 114 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Apr 23, 2010

MPS discontinued a number of Ivy’s previous vendors, *121 including vendors who had supplied the plants with paper, paper board, and corrugate. … King v.

In Re V-Mark Software, Inc. Securities Litigation

928 F. Supp. 122 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jun 17, 1996

Shaw, et al. v. Digital Corp., et al, 82 F.3d at 1217 (1st Cir.1996). … Capeless, VMARK's President and Chief Executive Officer and a member of the Board of Directors, and James K.

Cunningham v. Wrenn

10 F. Supp. 225 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Mar 1, 1935

Keyser v. Hitz, 133 U. S. 138 , 10 S. Ct. 290 , 33 L. Ed. 531 ; Finn v. Brown, 142 U. S. 56 , 12 S. Ct. 136 , 35 L. Ed. 936 ; Williams v. Vreeland, 250 U. S. 295 , 39 S. Ct. 438 , 63 L. Ed. 989 , 3 A. L. … Hayes v. Shoemaker (C. C.) 39 F. 319 ; Young v. McKay, supra; Snyder v. Foster (C. C. A.) 73 F. 136 ; Earle v. Coyle (C. C.) 95 F. 99 ; Dellert v. Stallman (C. C. A.) 29 F.(2d) 236 .

United States v. King

695 F. Supp. 1325 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Sep 28, 1988

The board denied parole and rated King “a poor[] risk” based at least in part, King argues, on erroneous information contained in his presentence report (“PSR”). … In Hardy v.

Seaplane Enterprises LLC v. Chen Tsui Tue

District Court, D. Massachusetts · Feb 22, 2024

Ruiz v. Bally Total Fitness Holding Corp., 496 F.3d 1, 5 (1st Cir. 2007) (citing Rogan v. Menino, 175 F.3d 75, 77 (1st Cir. 1999)). … Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007).

Perez v. Cumberland Farms, Inc.

213 B.R. 622 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Oct 10, 1997

Perez’s former attorneys, Brown & Associates, but neither Ms. Perez nor those attorneys filed a proof of claim prior to the bar date. More than two years later, Ms. Perez filed a Motion for Relief from Stay. … McAteer, 985 F.2d 114, 118 (3rd Cir.1993); Green v.

Adams v. Hyannis Harborview, Inc.

838 F. Supp. 676 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Nov 8, 1993

Tcherepnin v. … V, § 5.1.2, Tr.Exh. 8.)

Stathos v. Bowden

514 F. Supp. 1288 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · May 27, 1981

No. 90 v. Pennsylvania R.R. … In An-Ti Chai v.

Qestec, Inc. v. Krummenacker

164 F. Supp. 2d 172 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Sep 7, 2001

Next, Article III, Section 14 lists several “core decisions” for which approval by a quorum of the Board of Directors is required. … Finally, Article IV, Section 2 provides that officers may be removed at any time by a vote of a majority of the Board of Directors.

Painten v. Massachusetts

254 F. Supp. 246 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · May 19, 1966

See United States v. Wilson, 257 F.2d 796 (2nd Cir.); Rhodes v. United States, 275 F.2d 78 (4th Cir.); United States v. Williams, 253 F.2d 144 (7th Cir.); Esters v. United States, 255 F.2d 63 (8th Cir.); Christoffel v. … It is not totally without significance that although eligible for parole Painten has been denied parole by the Massachusetts Parole Board despite Professor Clark’s testimony before the Board in support of his application.