Case law

Silva v. Tompkins

District Court, D. Massachusetts · Apr 25, 2019

In rejecting Powell’s due process argument, the First Circuit held that he failed to establish that the state court’s decision conflicted with clearly established Supreme Court precedent and noted that Powell failed to … Nor has Silva cited any clearly-established federal law that was violated. 3.

Massachusetts Eye & Ear Infirmary v. QLT Phototherapeutics, Inc.

167 F. Supp. 2d 108 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Apr 13, 2001

Once a privilege has been established, the burden shifts to the proponent to establish an exception to the privilege. See Ogden Corp., 202 F.3d at 460 . … Pitcher stated: While we remain prepared to file an application (or prosecute the original) limiting the subject matter to inventions clearly conceived and reduced to practice by Drs.

Damon v. Carlson

District Court, D. Massachusetts · Sep 25, 2023

In the alternative, they argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity. … In order to establish a claim under Section 1983, Damon must establish that a person acting under the color of law denied him a right secured by the constitution or by federal law.

Siemens Gamesa Renewable Energy A/S v. General Electric Co.

District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jul 27, 2022

There is “no explicit lower limit on the quantum or quality of inventive contribution required for a person to qualify as a joint inventor.” Id. at 1358. … The situation in Kimberly-Clark is clearly distinguishable from the case at hand.

Shulse v. Western New England University

District Court, D. Massachusetts · Aug 4, 2020

Supp. 1342, 1353 (D.N.H.1985)) (“Clearly not every document referred to in a complaint may be considered incorporated by reference and thus introduced by the moving party in support of a motion to dismiss.”). … Once again, Shulse’s asserted failure to make satisfactory academic progress, Defendants’ articulated non-discriminatory justification, is not established by the complaint.

Advanced Ion Beam Technology, Inc. v. Varian Semiconductor Equipment Associates, Inc.

721 F. Supp. 2d 62 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jul 2, 2010

When I reviewed your 1970 patent 3,541,328 it clearly refers to a plurality of coil units (claim 5) and a plurality of power supplies. … The issue "whether conduct in procuring or enforcing a patent is sufficient to strip a patentee of its immunity from the antitrust laws is to be decided as a question of Federal Circuit law.”

Massachusetts Institute of Technology v. Harman International Industries, Inc.

584 F. Supp. 2d 297 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Sep 9, 2008

The nature of the use, however, remained clearly experimental at all times. … She also found a lack of evidence to establish that anyone freely distributed Davis’s thesis prior to the critical date.

United States v. Brennan

832 F. Supp. 435 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Oct 29, 1991

In this case there was ample evidence to establish a conspiracy to misapply bank funds. … More specifically, the evidence indicated: McHugh approved the issuance of the $550,000 loan; the loan clearly exceeded his personal lending authority; McHugh knew Harbor Group was synonymous with Brennan and in desperate

Sterngold Dental, LLC v. HDI Global Insurance Company

District Court, D. Massachusetts · Sep 29, 2018

These propositions are clearly contradicted by a plain reading of the policy. … It argues that the OSSEAN mark is a “slogan” such that its use of that mark qualified as “infringing upon another’s . . . slogan” in its “advertisement.”

Deconinck v. Silva

District Court, D. Massachusetts · Mar 23, 2020

With respect to Fay’s recorded statement, the judge found that it did not qualify as Adjutant evidence because it did not establish that the victim had been the first to use deadly force. … In the circumstances presented here, the SJC’s resolution of this claim does not appear to contravene or unreasonably apply any clearly established Supreme Court precedent. See Liteky v.

Jiang v. Shogun Japanese Steak House, Inc.

District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jan 31, 2024

That assertion—bordering on frivolous—is clearly contrary to Local Rule 5.4 and CM/ECF Administrative Procedures Section M.3, and the Court will disregard it. B. … That is not enough to establish an employer-employee relationship between Shogun and plaintiff.

Griffin v. Massachusetts Department of Revenue

District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jul 20, 2023

To qualify as a bona fide religious practice, a two-part test must be satisfied: the plaintiff must show “both that the belief or practice is religious and that it is sincerely held.” E.E.O.C. v. … It is clearly neutral on its face. And the DOR is a public employer with a strong interest in protecting the health of its own workers and the citizens that it serves.

Brown v. United States

615 F. Supp. 391 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Aug 12, 1985

Thus, Berry was clearly conscious at the time the Fairwind capsized. … The plaintiffs’ action in this case is premised on the United States general waiver of sovereign immunity under the Suits in Admiralty Act for admiralty actions, supra n. 1.

Mandarini v. Accurate Engineered Concrete, Inc.

District Court, D. Massachusetts · Dec 31, 2019

To qualify for such benefits, workers must work a certain number of creditable hours per year. … Plaintiffs explain and establish these points clearly in their papers.5 See Doc. No. 105 at 19–22; Doc. No. 90-6 (Mandarini Dep. Tr.) at 8-9 (23:9 – 27:2).

Almeida v. Cowin

District Court, D. Massachusetts · Sep 11, 2019

No. 24 at 2 (urging that his trial counsel’s stated challenges to the closing argument “clearly qualifie[d] as an objection that preserve[d]” the issue for appellate and habeas review). … In the circumstances presented here, the SJC’s resolution of this claim does not appear to contravene or unreasonably apply any clearly established Supreme Court precedent. See Anderson v.

United States v. Boylan

698 F. Supp. 376 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Oct 11, 1988

These conflicting theories were presented clearly, forcefully and consistently to the jury. … Thus, the article is clearly not prejudicial on its face. Rather, the prejudice, if any, must result from inferences jurors might have drawn after reading it.

Bozkurt v. City of Lawrence

District Court, D. Massachusetts · Mar 27, 2019

That section, titled “Establishment of a personnel department,” states as follows: 1.1 Purpose. … Here, the exhibits to the complaint itself clearly show that Bozkurt was given two warnings and permitted to defend himself at a disciplinary hearing before the city terminated his employment.

Duke v. Community Health Connections, Inc.

District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jan 11, 2019

Discussion Courts do not have jurisdiction over claims against the federal government, except where the government has expressly waived its immunity. See United States v. … For this reason, we have reversed dismissals where the applicability of the equitable tolling doctrine depended upon factual questions not clearly resolved in the pleadings.

Nickerson-Reti v. Lexington Public Schools

893 F. Supp. 2d 276 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Sep 27, 2012

Though not stated clearly in the complaint, Reti seems to have been removed from public schooling and home-schooled at this point due to Nickerson-Reti’s belief that he was not receiving adequate accommodations from Lexington … Nickerson-Reti also made no showing that she attempted to identify qualified evaluators who could abide by regulated rates, and produced no evidence as to whether her selected evaluators accepted regulated rates, whether

Mandeville v. Gaffney

District Court, D. Massachusetts · Mar 6, 2023

The parties disputed whether Mains, which established a thirty-day time limit for a prisoner’s filing of an SJC gatekeeper petition following denial of a motion for a new trial, applied to such denials occurring before … Claim (A) for “Ineffective Assistance of Counsel” and its antecedents in Mandeville’s SJC petitions do not “clearly indicate the nature of [his] defense attorney’s prejudicial conduct.” United States v.