Case law

Stafford Mills v. White

41 F.2d 58 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Feb 28, 1930

Co. v. Page (D. C.) 20 F.(2d) 948 ; Lafayette Worsted Co. v. Page (D. C.) 6 F.(2d) 399 . In the case at bar, injunctive relief is not sought, but rather a mandatory decree, and, as Mr. … Higgins Manufacturing Co. v. Page, supra. Defendant’s- motion to dismiss is allowed.

Unitt v. Spencer

District Court, D. Massachusetts · May 7, 2019

Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104 (1976) (quoting Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153, 173 (1976) (joint opinion of Stewart, Powell and Stevens, JJ.)). … Defendant Brown Unitt also has adequately pled a § 1983 claim against Brown.

Tingus v. Heckler

569 F. Supp. 1499 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Sep 2, 1983

See NLRB v. Brown, 380 U.S. 278, 291 , 85 S.Ct. 980, 988 , 13 L.Ed.2d 839 (1965). 2 . The only case cited to the court that discusses the extension provision at issue here rejected the Secretary’s narrow reading. … Schweiker v.

Kalbfleisch Corp. v. United States

53 F.2d 867 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Nov 18, 1931

V. Farr & Bailey Mfg. Co., 181 U. S. 218 , 21 S. Ct. 591 , 45 L. Ed. 830 ; Martin v. The Southwark, 191 U. S. 1 , 24 S. Ct. 1 , 48 L. Ed. 65 ; W. J. McCahan Sugar Ref. Co. v. The Wildcroft, 201 U. S. 378 , 26 S. … MeCahan v. The Wildcroft, supra. The test of seaworthiness is whether the vessel is reasonably fit to carry the cargo which she has undertaken to transport. Martin v. The Southwark, supra; The Silvia, 171 U.

Five Hundred & Twenty-Eight Pieces of Mahogany

9 F. Cas. 200 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Mar 15, 1874

In Post v. Jones, 19 How. [60 U. … Co. v. Johnson [Case No. 303].

United States v. Anzalone

221 F. Supp. 3d 189 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Oct 28, 2016

United States v. Djokich, 693 F.3d 37, 43 (1st Cir. 2012). … United States v. Gifford, 17 F.3d 462, 471 (1st Cir. 1994).

Hunnewell v. Taber

12 F. Cas. 895 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Sep 15, 1854

There is no contradiction on this point, except from some of the witnesses on board the carrier vessel, who say the oil was not well stowed, — that improper spaces intervened. … See Phillips v. Clark, 5 C. B. (N. S.; Am. Ed.) 881, 2 C. B. (N. S.) 156; Ohrloff v. Briscall, L. R. 1 P. C. 231.

Independent Federation of Flight Attendants v. Davis

633 F. Supp. 634 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Apr 25, 1986

Heheman v. E.W. Scripps Co., 661 F.2d 1115, 1124 (6th Cir.1981); Local 205, United Electrical Radio and Machine Workers v. … The IFFA has cited several cases decided by the National Labor Relations Board (“the Board”) under the NLRA in support of its position on this issue.

Bennett v. City of Holyoke

230 F. Supp. 2d 207 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Nov 7, 2002

See Brown v. … See Tate v.

Ex parte Chin Loy You

223 F. 833 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Feb 16, 1915

Tang Tun v. Edsell, supra; U. S. v. Sprung, 187 Fed. 903, 907 , 110 C. C. A. 37 (dissenting opinion by Pritchard, J.); Bouve on Aliens, p. 518. … S. v. Ju Toy, 198 U. S. 253 , 25 Sup. Ct. 644, 49 L. Ed. 1040 ; Tang Tun Case, supra.

Almonte v. Reno

27 F. Supp. 2d 106 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Nov 19, 1998

In Wallace v. … In Barreiro v.

Curtik v. United States

19 F. Supp. 447 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · May 24, 1937

He appealed, with the result that the action of the Insurance Claims Council was affirmed by the Administrative Board of Appeal. … Hunnewell v. United States (D.C.) 2 F.Supp. 389 ; Robinson v. United States (D.C.) 12 F.Supp. 160 ; United States v. Townsend (C.C.A.) 81 F.(2d) 1013 .

Sponge Products Corp. v. Fowler

147 F. Supp. 803 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jan 14, 1957

Gillman v. Stern, 2 Cir., 114 F.2d 28, 30 . … There is a board or plate hinged to the back of the brush just above the sponge-pad with a lever arrangement for forcing the board or plate down on the sponge-pad to squeeze. water from it.

United States Lines Co. v. Nacirema Operating Co.

215 F. Supp. 627 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Apr 8, 1963

AMERICAN' FORESTER, then in the port of Boston-It contracted with respondent that the-latter should perform stevedoring services on board the vessel. Among respondent’s employees was Shanahan. 2. … Paliaga v. Luckenbach S. Co., supra. 3.

Fredericks v. Vartanian

529 F. Supp. 264 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Dec 16, 1981

Board of Regents v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564, 569 , 92 S.Ct. 2701, 2705 , 33 L.Ed.2d 548 (1972); Webster v. Redmond, 599 F.2d 793, 796-97 (7th Cir. 1979). … Plaintiff contends that his interest in his military rank constituted a valuable property right cognizable under the Fourteenth Amendment. 1 In Board of Regents v.

United States v. Pimental

199 F.R.D. 28 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Feb 20, 2001

represent a select minority of board members. … See United States v. Anderson, 778 F.2d 602, 605 (10th Cir.1985); United States v. Lartey, 716 F.2d 955, 964 (2d Cir.1983); United States v. Thomas, 593 F.2d 615, 623 (5th Cir.1979); United States v.

Bally v. National Collegiate Athletic Ass'n

707 F. Supp. 57 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Feb 8, 1988

Miller v. Grgurich, 763 F.2d 372, 373 (9th Cir.1985); see also Wilson v. Republic Iron & Steel, 257 U.S. 92, 97 , 42 S.Ct. 35, 37 , 66 L.Ed. 144 (1921). … See Butler v. Polk, 592 F.2d 1293, 1296 (5th Cir.1979) (stating that “it is axiomatic that ambiguities are generally construed against removal”); Jones v.

General Marine Construction Corp. v. United States

738 F. Supp. 586 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · May 31, 1990

Consultants v. Fed. Emerg. … In other words, the United States comes on board as third-party plaintiff in the shoes of General Marine, to whom the CDA does not apply.

Shulse v. Western New England University

District Court, D. Massachusetts · Aug 4, 2020

Doe v. Brown Univ., 166 F. Supp. 3d 177, 181 n.3 (D.R.I. 2016) (quoting Arruda v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 310 F.3d 13, 18 (1st Cir. 2002)).   … Claims Against Caprio and the Board Defendants have also requested dismissal of Plaintiff’s claims against Caprio and the Board.

United States Department of the Treasury v. Gosselin

252 B.R. 854 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jul 31, 2000

(In re Fernandez), 123 F.3d 241, 244-245 (5th Cir.1997); Mitchell v. Franchise Tax Board, State of California (In re Mitchell), 209 F.3d 1111 , 1119 (9th Cir.2000). … See, e.g., Elias v. California Franchise Tax Board (In re Elias), 218 B.R. 80, 87 (9th Cir. BAP 1998); DeAngelis v. Lasky (In re DeAngelis), 239 B.R. 426, 430 (Bankr.D.Mass.1999) (Kenner, C.J.).