Case law

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.

Greenspan v. Random House, Inc.

859 F. Supp. 2d 206 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · May 9, 2012

In short, Greenspan has failed to allege sufficient facts to establish a claim under § 43(a) of the Lanham Act. C. … This is clearly the basis for Mezrich’s opinion that Greenspan’s motive for attacking The Accidental Billionaires was a desire to illuminate his side of the dispute with Zuckerberg.

Lopez v. City of Somerville

District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jun 21, 2018

Deliberate indifference may be established if the institution’s, “response to the harassment or lack [of response] is clearly unreasonable in light of the known circumstances.” Davis Next Friend LaShonda D. v. … “Although the act statutorily eliminates the immunity that governmental bodies would ordinarily enjoy under common law, it sets forth several exceptions to that general waiver of sovereign immunity.” Cormier v.

Nnodim v. U.S. Bank National Association

District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jul 31, 2025

plaintiff enjoys for purposes of advancing a MCRA claim are those interests that are codified in Massachusetts’ anti-SLAPP statute, M.G.L. c. 231, § 59H.5 The defendants do not clearly … These facts are sufficient in the court’s view to establish that the plaintiff adequately served US Bank with the demand letter.

Spinucci v. Vidal

District Court, D. Massachusetts · May 6, 2020

A petitioner must show that the state court decision applied clearly established federal law in a way that was “objectively unreasonable.” Roden, 753 F.3d at 299 (quoting White v. … Respondent opposes habeas relief, arguing that the SJC’s determination of the facts and its application of clearly established federal law were reasonable. [ECF No. 33 at 3]. A.

United States v. Massachusetts Water Resources Authority

97 F. Supp. 2d 155 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · May 5, 2000

However, a 1989 consultant’s report persuaded the MWRA’s Board of Directors that the system as a whole, because of its dependence on the Wachusett Reservoir, would be unable to qualify. … The testimony was clearly beyond Mr. King’s competence. King, 22:61-63. 64 . According to Dr.

Foundation Medicine, Inc. v. Kittle

District Court, D. Massachusetts · Feb 20, 2025

These vocational goals clearly overlap substantively with the responsibilities he was charged with at FMI. … FMI has met its burden of establishing that it is likely to suffer an injury that cannot be compensated by money damages if Kittle continues to work for Foresight.

Nextel Communications of the Mid-Atlantic, Inc. v. Town of Brookline

520 F. Supp. 2d 238 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Sep 28, 2007

For this additional reason, the ZBA’s conclusion that Nextel’s application did not qualify for a special permit is supported by the record. (See PL’s Ex. C at 7). 2. … Furthermore, neither the maps themselves nor the other evidence contained in the record clearly explains how to read the information set forth in the maps.

Roe v. Farwell

999 F. Supp. 174 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Mar 31, 1998

This intent is clearly remedial. Roe identifies no contrary legislative history. 2. … The qualified language is necessary because Doe v. Attorney General, 426 Mass. 136 , 686 N.E.2d 1007 (1997) involved a level-one offender and Roe may well be classified at a higher level.

Wade v. Brady

460 F. Supp. 2d 226 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Oct 27, 2006

Even if a new trial is necessary, our society has clearly expressed a value judgment that a reliable determination of guilt or innocence is worth the cost of a fair trial. … Where an exclusionary test result would automatically exonerate a prisoner, the right is clearly implicated.

Snyder v. Contracted Medical for the DOC

District Court, D. Massachusetts · Mar 27, 2020

A TRO may issue without notice only if “specific facts in an affidavit or a verified complaint clearly show that immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or damage will result to the movant before the adverse party can … Without a medical opinion to establish that either plaintiff suffers from the medical conditions alleged, plaintiffs cannot prevail on their claim and they, therefore, have not established that they are likely to prevail

North Shore Pharmacy Services, Inc. v. Breslin Associates Consulting LLC

491 F. Supp. 2d 111 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · May 15, 2007

Applying these principles to the instant case, this court finds that the challenged statements are either clearly statements of fact or are opinions that imply an assertion of fact. … However, BAC is not obligated to establish a financial loss in order to pursue its defamation claim.

AngioDynamics, Inc. v. Biolitec AG

991 F. Supp. 2d 283 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jan 14, 2014

As to the first argument, the three identified individuals clearly are “managing agents.” … No. 152 at 12) Second, the witnesses are not only technically qualified to give testimony at BAG’S direction, but have actually done so in this case. (Dkt.

United States v. Lachman

278 F. Supp. 2d 68 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Aug 14, 2003

At a minimum, the defendants conclude, they have established that the Commerce Department did or ought to have interpreted the term more narrowly. … authorized to *88 “supply ‘official’ definitions for terms that are not expressly defined in the [Export] Regulations”; 32 and that the defendants’ submission of affidavits by former Commerce Department officials cannot qualify

Montblanc-Simplo GMBH v. Staples, Inc.

172 F. Supp. 2d 231 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · May 3, 2001

From the photograph, the obliteration of the Pix mark on the gold central band on the cap is clearly visible. … Thereafter, Montblanc created a new box that qualified for copyright protection.

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

719 F. Supp. 1144 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Apr 11, 1989

The court should not substitute its judgment on such matters for that of the agency but should intervene only when it is clearly determined that the agency’s determinations were irrational or unreasonable. … Justification for this refusal rests primarily upon considerations of sovereign immunity and constitutional grounds ... There is also a vital concern for public policy.

Ariad Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co.

529 F. Supp. 2d 106 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jul 6, 2007

Hausdorff clearly was aware of the error, since she provided the information that figure 43 was incorrect in the '266 and '397 applications to the prosecuting attorneys. … Cytokines are secreted proteins that affect the functions of other cells and which are important for the interactions between cells *118 in the immune response.

Spanos v. TJX Companies, Inc.

220 F. Supp. 2d 67 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Sep 19, 2002

(R. 164)(emphasis in original) Benefits are payable in the second phase, beyond 24 months, if the employee is “unable to work at any occupation, [he is] or could reasonably become qualified to do by education, training or … That is, the First Circuit “has interpreted the Firestone rule ‘to mean that a benefits plan must clearly grant discretionary authority to the administrator before decisions will be accorded the deferential, arbitrary and

In re Nexium (Esomeprazole) Antitrust Litigation

309 F.R.D. 107 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jul 30, 2015

Accordingly, I make it a practice rarely to entertain such motions pre-trial unless they clearly impact a party's opening or, as in the case of prior convictions under Fed. R. … In Suboh , I should have granted the defendant qualified immunity, Suboh v. Dist.

Desai v. University of Massachusetts Memorial Medical Center

District Court, D. Massachusetts · May 31, 2022

that other comparably qualified individuals. … claim (Count III), federal age discrimination claim (Count IV), and Massachusetts discrimination claim (Count V) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because, as a public entity, it is entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity