Case law

Clark v. Edison

881 F. Supp. 2d 192 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jul 25, 2012

That position is clearly incorrect; admissibility of expert testimony under Rule 702 must be assessed on a case-by-case basis. … Relevance of the Testimony Expert testimony on the topic of memory repression is clearly relevant to plaintiffs claim.

Metropolitan Property & Casualty Insurance Co. v. Savin Hill Family Chiropractic, Inc.

266 F. Supp. 3d 502 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jul 21, 2017

qualified health care professional. … Here, the Plaintiffs clearly assert claims for monetary loss.” (Chiropractor Def. Mem. at 12).

Rolland v. Patrick

483 F. Supp. 2d 107 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Apr 10, 2007

The Settlement Agreement also established a further implementation schedule. (Id. ¶¶ 15-18.) … Gant is qualified to opine on the subject matter presently before the court. Second, the sample size Dr.

Dias v. Colvin

52 F. Supp. 3d 270 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Sep 30, 2014

Plaintiff is correct in noting that an ALJ is “not qualified to interpret raw medical data in functional terms” and that an ALJ’s RFC cannot stand when “no medical opinion supports] the determination.” Nguyen v. … Feb. 7, 2014) (“ALJ clearly considered Plaintiffs spinal issues,” deemed non-severe at step two, “when assessing *282 her RFC” as shown by ALJ’s extensive discussion of the impairment and his reliance on MRI report).

Turner v. Liberty Mutual Retirement Benefit Plan

District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jul 15, 2024

In addition, plaintiff must establish the elements for one of the types of class actions set out in Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b). … For both Rules 23(a) and 23(b), plaintiff must establish each of the elements; failure to establish any of them will defeat class certification. See Smilow v.

Cumberland Farms, Inc. v. Montague Economic Development & Industrial Corp. (In re Cumberland Farms, Inc.)

168 B.R. 455 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jun 9, 1994

But that inference would clearly not apply to the period of over thirty months involved here. The Massachusetts regulation on relocation assistance contemplates charges for use and occupancy following a taking. … Upon approval of the plan, the taking authority must “assist owners of displaced businesses ... obtaining and becoming established in suitable business lo-cations_” Mass.Gen.L. ch. 79A, § 6.

Durepo v. Eastman Chemical Company

District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jan 23, 2023

Succession planning gave priority to critical positions like Plaintiff's to avoid a vacancy in a critical position that no one was qualified to fill (DSOF ¶ 6; Dkt. No. 32-1 at 58-59). … and retirement inquiries and references, "[a]n employer may legitimately inquire about an employee's plans [for retirement] so that it can prepare to meet its hiring needs[, but] repeated and/or coercive inquiries can clearly

Board of Trustees of the IUOE Local 4 Pension Fund v. Alongi

District Court, D. Massachusetts · May 3, 2024

Appx. 709, 716 (10th Cir. 2011) (“Termination of employment is clearly an adverse employment action.”); Osborne-Trussell v. Children’s Hosp. … process that involves both the employer and the qualified individual with a disability.”

Aktiebolaget Electrolux v. Armatron International Inc.

829 F. Supp. 458 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Oct 27, 1992

The First Circuit has followed the Supreme Court’s lead in recognizing the “clear distinction between the showing required to establish a right to injunctive relief and that required to establish a right to damages.” … Because these “requirements” are often cabined by qualifying language, a detailed historical overview of the development of the caselaw in this Circuit is warranted.

United States v. Seluk

691 F. Supp. 525 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jul 5, 1988

A one-House veto is clearly legislative in both character and effect and is not so checked; the need for the check provided by Art. I, §§ 1, 7, is therefore clear. … Nixon that the prohibition of sharing of power implicit in separation-of-powers doctrine does not insulate the exercise of the power of each branch in a way that would sustain a claim of absolute Presidential privilege of immunity

In re Lantus Direct Purchaser Antitrust Litigation

District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jan 10, 2018

It is also significant that the Lantus SoloSTAR is clearly not just a package, or container to hold a drug, but rather is an integral part of the way insulin glargine can be used to treat diabetes. … However, immunity is lost if the lawsuit is a “sham.”

Fitzgerald v. City of Lawrence

District Court, D. Massachusetts · Nov 21, 2024

Under the sham affidavit rule, “[w]hen an interested witness has given clear answers to unambiguous questions, he cannot create a conflict and resist summary judgment with an affidavit that is clearly contradictory, but … Contrary to the Defendants’ arguments, nothing in the record conclusively establishes a one-year requirement for completion of the Academy.

Manning v. Abington Rockland Joint Water Works

District Court, D. Massachusetts · Mar 4, 2019

The EEOC was clearly aware and acknowledged that there might have been other charges raised within Ms. Manning’s Complaint as to which it failed to make findings. … This request is clearly not finite, nor does it suggest a request for any kind of accommodation aside from the problematic leave itself.

Sexton v. Barnhart

247 F. Supp. 2d 15 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Feb 27, 2003

She asserts that these conditions limit her ability to work because she is unable to think clearly, concentrate or focus her attention. (A.R. at 104.) … Moreover, it is well established that the court must generally defer to credibility determinations made by an administrative law judge. See Frustaglia v.

Gaskins v. Duval

652 F. Supp. 2d 116 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Sep 9, 2009

For example, “[w]hen a petitioner fails to raise his federal claims in compliance with relevant state procedural rules, the state court’s refusal to adjudicate the claim ordinarily qualifies as an independent and adequate … To prevail, he must demonstrate that the ruling by the single justice (which essentially adopted the analysis of the motion judge) was contrary to or an unreasonable application of clearly established Federal law, or that

Salmon v. Lang

District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jan 28, 2021

At bottom, the First Amendment does not immunize workplace misconduct disguised in the name of free speech. … While refusing to transfer an employee may qualify as an adverse employment action, see Rutan v.

Sodexo, Inc. v. Jordan

District Court, D. Massachusetts · May 5, 2020

This information—what specific accounts qualify as “must win” and “in trouble” to Sodexo—appears to qualify under the Agreement’s definition of confidential information as it is information about Sodexo’s business plan … These documents, however, do not establish that all information was available to the public and Jordan appears to concede that there is a triable issue on whether this information qualifies as “confidential information”

Ehlert v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company

District Court, D. Massachusetts · Nov 23, 2020

Clearly Dr. Didwania and Dr. Brusch are qualified to offer opinions with respect to infectious diseases given that both are Board certified in the field. … No major neurocognitive disorder has been adequately established.” (AR at 841.)

In Re Credit Suisse-AOL Securities Litigation

465 F. Supp. 2d 34 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Dec 7, 2006

Whatever the truth of the matter is, isolating the myriad causal factors that affect stock price is a factual question that should be decided at trial, with the help of qualified experts. … Taken in the light most favorable to Plaintiff, these comments are clearly sufficient to support an inference of artificial inflation.

Faulk v. Medeiros

District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jul 27, 2018

A state court[’s] decision is “contrary to” clearly established federal law . . . if it “contradicts the governing law set forth in the Supreme Court’s … A state court’s decision involves an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law “if the state court ‘identifies the correct governing legal principle from [the