Case law

United States Ex Rel. Carpenter v. Abbott Laboratories, Inc.

723 F. Supp. 2d 395 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jul 16, 2010

Protease inhibitors are drugs used to control the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV). 3 HIV progressively destroys the body’s ability to fight off opportunistic infections by attacking the cells of the immune system. … While FERA’s language establishing its effective date appears dispositive, Carpenter and Abbott disagree over the meaning of the word “claims.”

Carriere, Jr v. Medeiros

District Court, D. Massachusetts · Sep 5, 2018

Therefore, Carriere has not established that the SJC’s decision is contrary to, or involves an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law. … Therefore the SJC’s decision was not contrary to, or an unreasonable application of, clearly established Supreme Court precedent. 2.

Perez v. Licon-Vitale

District Court, D. Massachusetts · Sep 14, 2022

As discussed below, the court agrees with defendants and allows their first motion to dismiss.17 17 The court need not address defendants’ other arguments, including that they are entitled to qualified immunity and … immunity. See #37 at 19-25. The court’s rulings below also dispense with any requests for non- monetary relief.

Howell v. John Leahy

District Court, D. Massachusetts · May 5, 2022

The Lowell Regional Transportation Authority was established as “a political subdivision of the Commonwealth [of Massachusetts]” and includes the “city of Lowell and the towns of Billerica, Chelmsford, Dracut, Tewksbury … P. 10(c), use of exhibits does not excuse Howell of his responsibility to clearly and succinctly set forth the relevant allegations in the body of the complaint.

Prudential Insurance Co. of America v. Boston Harbor Marina Co.

159 B.R. 616 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Nov 30, 1993

Legal Reasoning The factual determinations of the Bankruptcy Court are binding unless clearly erroneous, but its conclusions of law are to be reviewed de novo. In re LaRoche, 969 F.2d 1299, 1301 (1st Cir.1992); Robb v. … Issue Presented The central issue in this analysis, is whether Prudential had sufficient security interest in the rents for them to qualify as cash collateral.

Cablevision of Boston, Inc. v. Public Improvement Commission

38 F. Supp. 2d 46 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jan 27, 1999

VI, cl. 2, does not secure and is not itself a right, privilege or immunity secured by the Constitution. Chapman v. … In this case, it appears that Congress knew how to clearly create a private right of action when it considered the TCA. It expressly created at least two private rights of action in that statute.

London-Sire Records, Inc. v. Doe 1

542 F. Supp. 2d 153 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Mar 31, 2008

Copyright infringement, per se, is clearly not speech entitled to First Amendment protection. See Harper & Row Publishers, Inc. v. … Clearly, that description accurately characterizes electronic file transfers.

Buoi v. United States

District Court, D. Massachusetts · Aug 8, 2025

A defendant has no burden to establish a defense of good faith. … The instructions clearly specified that intent to defraud was an element of the wire-fraud charges.

Lluberes v. Uncommon Productions, LLC

740 F. Supp. 2d 207 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Aug 16, 2010

The statement, however, is clearly a rhetorical one and cannot be proved true or false, contrary to the required elements of a defamation. King v. … See St Amant, 390 U.S. at 733 , 88 S.Ct. 1323 (“Failure to investigate does not in itself establish bad faith.”).

Campbell v. Bristol Community College

District Court, D. Massachusetts · Aug 22, 2019

As an African-American, Campbell is clearly a member of a protected class, and both parties agree that the college terminated her employment. … The First Circuit has held that a period of roughly a month may qualify as sufficiently close in time to establish a prima facie case. See Calero-Cerezo v.

Moore

District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jan 13, 2026

Ineffective assistance of counsel standard For the purposes of habeas review, “[t]he Strickland standard qualifies as clearly established federal law.” Janosky v. St. … For the aforementioned reasons, the SJC did not unreasonably apply clearly established Federal law when it determined that Moore’s counsel did not provide ineffective assistance by failing to martial Martin’s cell phone

McDermott v. Marcus, Errico, Emmer & Brooks, P.C.

911 F. Supp. 2d 1 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Nov 20, 2012

Ladick to his condominium association qualifies as a debt under the FDCPA”); Dikun v. … MEEB fails to establish a bona fide error defense.

Phillips v. City of Methuen

818 F. Supp. 2d 325 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Oct 11, 2011

Plaintiffs conspiracy claim in Count II rests on the alleged violation of his rights in Count I. 73 It is well established that, “in the context of a continuing conspiracy to violate civil rights, the statute of limitations … [Supervisory duties, conferred on a discretionary basis, do not qualify as a property interest.” 79 Furthermore, in the event that a plaintiff has a right to a “benefit” conferred by state law, he cannot succeed in alleging

Royce-George & Associates, LLC v. U.S. Bank, N.A.

District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jan 28, 2021

Conversely, “[t]o defeat a properly supported motion for summary judgment, the nonmoving party must establish a trial-worthy issue by presenting enough competent evidence to enable a finding favorable to the nonmoving … To survive Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, RGA must establish a “trial-worthy issue by presenting enough competent evidence to enable” a favorable finding on that issue. ATC Realty, 303 F.3d at 94.

In Re Pharmaceutical Industry Average Wholesale Price Litigation

491 F. Supp. 2d 20 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jun 21, 2007

It is true that the same entity can sue as a plaintiff under § 11 in one case, and be immune to suit under § 11 in a different case. See Boston Hous. Auth. v. … Class 3 consumers who made co-payments clearly have a claim under § 9. 50 .

Picker International Corp. v. Imaging Equipment Services, Inc.

931 F. Supp. 18 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jul 5, 1995

The fact that Picker may not always have kept the manuals loeked-up at customer sites does not qualify this conclusion. … Francis Hospital. *43 The manner of Quinn’s training does not qualify this conclusion.

Legoff v. Trustees of Boston University

23 F. Supp. 2d 120 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Sep 28, 1998

A motion to dismiss should be granted “ ‘only if it clearly appears, according to the facts alleged, that the plaintiff cannot recover on any viable theory.’ ” Garita Hotel Ltd. Partnership v. Ponce Fed. … Several months later, she was not hired for a position for which, she alleges, she was the most qualified applicant. She has alleged sufficient facts to make out a prima facie case of retaliation.

Brissette v. Franklin County, Sheriff's Office

235 F. Supp. 2d 63 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jan 6, 2003

Analysis Given the court’s lengthy findings of fact, it will not be necessary to recapitulate in detail the evidence that clearly establishes the existence of a work environment hostile to female correctional officers at … This can be accomplished “by demonstrating that she is a member of a protected group who has been denied an employment opportunity for which she was otherwise qualified.” Id.

Den Norske Bank v. First Nat. Bank of Boston

838 F. Supp. 19 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Nov 17, 1993

Schwartz’s averment fails to establish as a matter of law, however, that paragraph 11 applies to default situations. … MaGee has been qualified to testify as an expert in similar matters in three separate court proceedings in the past two years. (Docket Entry # 13, ¶ 1). 10 . "Tranche" and "tranches" are not identified. 11 .

McCauley v. UMass Correctional Health Care

District Court, D. Massachusetts · Aug 29, 2018

Accordingly, McCauley has not established that Atkins exhibited deliberate indifference to his needs. … immunity, D. 127 at 8-13; D. 133 at 17-19, and the applicability of the ADA and Rehabilitation Act to MPCH.