Case law

Bridge Street Automotive, Inc. v. Green Valley Oil, LLC

985 F. Supp. 2d 96 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Nov 6, 2013

Corporacion de P.R., 498 F.3d 9, 17 (1st Cir.2007) (“For a statement to qualify as an admis sion by a party-opponent, the statement must be made by a party, a person authorized by the party to make statements on its behalf … These answers are clearly hearsay and inadmissible. Moreover, they are not inconsistent with the fact that individuals working on Green Valley’s accounts were located in ARFA’s office.

United States v. Arnone

973 F. Supp. 206 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jul 15, 1997

Bribes clearly involve a quid pro quo exchange. United States v. Mariano, 983 F.2d 1150, 1159 (1st Cir.1993). Kickbacks according to the defendants, also require some form of quid pro quo exchange. United States v. … One example from the current guideline may be instructive: ... if a bank officer agreed to the offer of a $25,000 bribe to approve a $250,000 loan under terms for which the applicant would not otherwise qualify, the court

United States v. LaRouche Campaign

695 F. Supp. 1290 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Aug 10, 1988

Although the memorandum qualifies as a statement, it does not relate to the subject matter of Emerson’s anticipated testimony on direct examination. No persons or entities associated with Mr. … Although the record does not establish Brady violations approaching the scope of those asserted by defendants, the disclosure obligations that were violated were clearly established in the law, not founded on close or debatable

Willitts v. GDF Suez Energy North America Inc./Engie North America, Inc.

District Court, D. Massachusetts · Mar 20, 2023

“For each of [his] ADA claims, [Willitts] must establish that he was a ‘qualified individual’ at the time of [the alleged adverse action].” Thompson v. … All jobs may not require physical presence, but Willitts’ position, which involved operating and maintaining physical equipment, clearly did.

Cifizzari v. Town of Milford

District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jul 9, 2025

private right of action against any person who, under color of state law, ‘subjects, or causes to be subjected, any . . person within the jurisdiction [of the United States] to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities … Qualified Immunity As the Court is granting summary judgment on all counts, it declines to reach the merits of whether any MPD Defendant would be shielded by qualified immunity

RLI Insurance v. General Star Indemnity Co.

997 F. Supp. 140 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Feb 25, 1998

February 1994, while the Gorham claim that is the subject of this litigation was pending and yet to be settled, many unresolved issues of Massachusetts law, including issues noted but not decided in Abrams , were firmly and clearly … Each of these witnesses was, in the court’s view, highly qualified and professional.

United States v. Perella

273 F. Supp. 2d 162 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jul 30, 2003

I recognize that if that were all that was necessary to qualify for this departure, the exception would swallow the rule. … Clearly a court can have the additional confidence that such a person will be drug-free even after the court sanctions are no longer available.

Mattei v. Medeiros

District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jun 13, 2018

The respondent, Sean Medeiros (“Medeiros”) opposes the petition, arguing that the Massachusetts Appeals Court decision did not unreasonably apply clearly established federal law. … The Massachusetts Appeals Court’s decision “was [not] contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d))(1).

Lewis v. Burwell

District Court, D. Massachusetts · Mar 30, 2019

Since 2015, however, three district courts and more than 40 ALJs have disagreed with the Secretary’s position that CGMs do not qualify as DME. … issues throughout the litigation and 2) the inference that the Secretary raised the issue of mootness (which was later overruled by this Court on a motion to reconsider) when plaintiff clearly

Madelon

District Court, D. Massachusetts · Oct 28, 2025

Massachusetts Appeals Court unreasonably applied clearly established federal law as to his ineffective assistance of counsel claim. … For the purposes of habeas review, “[t]he Strickland standard qualifies as clearly established federal law.” Janosky v. St. Amand, 594 F.3d 39, 47 (1st Cir. 2010).

Cooke v. Lynn Sand & Stone Co.

673 F. Supp. 14 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jul 18, 1986

. § 1344 , establishes rules for the allocation of assets of terminating pension plans. … In 1964, Lynn Sand established a Pension Plan for non-managerial employees (“1964 Non-Management Plan”).

Young v. Aetna Life Insurance

146 F. Supp. 3d 313 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Nov 16, 2015

Parker concluded, “[b]ased on the limitations established by [Plaintiffs] physicians, she is totally disabled from all employment,” and she would remain so for the foreseeable future. … work, Aetna made no finding as to whether she would be mentally qualified for such work, considering her significant medication requirements.

Integrated Communications & Technologies, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Financial Services Company

District Court, D. Massachusetts · Aug 13, 2020

In support of this argument, Plaintiffs state that “[n]ot only was H3C a wholly-owned subsidiary of HP and a good candidate for Rule 801(d)(2)(D) as such, but in this particular counterfeiting matter H3C clearly acted as … As noted above, he qualifies as an expert and may give testimony on the topics noted above.

Walsh v. Boston University

661 F. Supp. 2d 91 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Sep 28, 2009

Napolitano, 562 F.3d at 92 , it contains sufficiently analogous qualities to a court ordered consent decree such that plaintiff qualifies as a prevailing party. … Sovereign immunity and the accompanying stricter construction it entails, id., is not at issue in this case. Finding prevailing party status also adheres to First Circuit precedent, Stefan v.

United States v. Pimental

236 F. Supp. 2d 99 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Dec 19, 2002

The mailings in Schmuck and Pacheco-Ortiz are clearly distinguishable from the Account Data Report in this case. … This fact clearly made a difference to the majority, which emphasized the social costs of retrying the case under the first indictment. Id. at 72 , 106 S.Ct. 938 .

Bailey v. Dart Container Corp. of Michigan

157 F. Supp. 2d 110 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Aug 17, 2001

Clearly, the ’015 patent does not require “protrusions,” which by definition jut out from the central portion, to take a “relatively flat” form. … The Federal Circuit has examined § 112 ¶ 6 in several cases and has established guidelines for determining its applicability.

Small v. Massachusetts Institute of Technology

584 F. Supp. 2d 284 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Feb 29, 2008

Defendant does not dispute that Small has established a prima facie case. Defendant’s legitimate nondiscriminatory reason is not insubstantial. … Her August 2000 internal griev-anee is too remote in time to establish a causál connection. 13 . Defendant also cites Mole. v.

Amgen, Inc. v. Chugai Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd.

808 F. Supp. 894 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Dec 3, 1992

Equally clearly, this provision precludes Amgen from licensing to any third parties the right to manufacture EPO in the U.S. under the ’008 patent for sale abroad. … While it may have more difficulty meeting the timeliness requirement, Ortho most clearly does not satisfy the second requirement — the interest requirement.

In Re Indian Motorcycle Litigation

307 B.R. 7 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jan 30, 2004

Mandelman and the Receiver were to jointly establish a separate corporation for the purpose of holding all of the European trademark rights. By 1997, further disputes had arisen. … The amounts owed to Mandelman clearly do not fall in the first category, but the Receiver’s fees on behalf of itself and its attorneys do.

ELIASSEN GROUP LLC v. Artificial Inventions LLC

District Court, D. Massachusetts · Mar 27, 2024

Once Eliassen identifies qualified candidates, it is considered to have established a “role,” beginning the interview process with the Client. … business, which requires the Court to assume that Eliassen would have fulfilled all the acquisitions by the point the Complaint was filed, and to some degree, ignore the Release Agreement between Eliassen and Nomura that clearly