Case law

Langlois v. Hodgson

District Court, D. Massachusetts · Nov 27, 2018

“Essentially, Rule 56[] mandates the entry of summary judgment ‘against a party who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party’s case, and on which that party will … Analysis Defendants have moved for summary judgment on grounds of failure to exhaust administrative remedies and qualified immunity.

Pineda v. Skinner Services, Inc.

District Court, D. Massachusetts · Aug 8, 2019

However, in the context of this line of questioning, defense counsel did not clearly specify the time period in question. … established the requisite “critical mass” defendants suggest is required.

Beal Bank, SSB v. Waters Edge Limited Partnership

248 B.R. 668 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Apr 11, 2000

The Maginot line is clearly drawn. … None of these arguments is compelling enough to overcome the clearly erroneous hurdle.

Brown v. Juniper Networks, Inc.

District Court, D. Massachusetts · Sep 23, 2019

Mass. 2001) (granting summary judgment on an interference claim where the plaintiff was “clearly informed . . . that her paid leave would run concurrently with her FMLA leave”). … The policy clearly establishes that an employee may concurrently use paid time off during her FMLA leave, which is otherwise unpaid. 6 But even assuming her leave had begun on

Caruso v. Delta Air Lines, Inc.

District Court, D. Massachusetts · Mar 9, 2022

Upon his return to Caruso’s room, Lucas testified that he found Caruso sitting in the shower, and clearly intoxicated. … She more clearly articulates the bases of her claims in her opposition to defendant’s pending motion.

Block & Leviton LLP v. Federal Trade Commission

District Court, D. Massachusetts · Oct 15, 2020

To invoke Exemption 4, “the agency must establish that the withheld records are (1) commercial or financial, (2) obtained from a person, and (3) privileged or confidential.” … FOIA Exemption 6 exempts from disclosure information about individuals in “personnel and medical files and similar files” when disclosure “would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of

Bergeron Ex Rel. P. Bergeron Nominee Trust v. Ridgewood Securities Corp.

610 F. Supp. 2d 113 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Mar 31, 2009

Shares of Ridgewood funds were offered only to “qualified” or “accredited” investors having a high net worth. (DF ¶ 7; PR ¶ 7). Bergeron certified to Mr. … These obligations are not clearly defined.

Manshadi v. Laitinen

District Court, D. Massachusetts · Feb 18, 2025

Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”), confirming that the noncitizen beneficiary qualifies as an eligible family member. … Courts are split as to whether § 1202(b) creates a “nondiscretionary duty” establishing jurisdiction under the APA and MVA. See Conley v. U.S. Dep’t of State, 731 F. Supp. 3d 104, 109 (D.

Walker v. City of Holyoke

523 F. Supp. 2d 86 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Nov 30, 2007

Aqueduct & Sewers Auth., 331 F.3d 183 , 192 (1st Cir.2003) (“The inadequacy of [the plaintiffs] Title VII claim establishes the inadequacy of her § 1983 claim.”); Torres-Rosado v. … Since the court concludes there is no First Amendment violation in this case, there is no need to consider whether Defendant is protected from monetary liability by the doctrine of qualified immunity. See Dirrane v.

Flynn v. Menino

944 F. Supp. 81 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Nov 5, 1996

Where a public employee speaks out on a topic which is clearly a legitimate matter of inherent concern to the electorate, the court may eschew further inquiry into the employee’s motives as revealed by the “form and context … ” of the expres-sion_ On the other hand, public-employee speech on a topic which would not necessarily qualify, on the basis of its content alone, as a matter of inherent public concern (e.g., internal working conditions,

Clapp v. Tobin

District Court, D. Massachusetts · Mar 18, 2022

Therefore, the Court does not need to reach the defense of qualified immunity. A. … Hoyos, 151 F.3d 1, 6 (1st Cir. 1998) (“The right to be free from unreasonable seizure (and, by extension, unjustified arrest and detention) is clearly established in the jurisprudence of the Fourteenth Amendment (through

Redgrave v. Boston Symphony Orchestra, Inc.

602 F. Supp. 1189 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Feb 13, 1985

Under the law of defamation, at least as applied to media defendants, a public figure plaintiff may not recover damages unless he or she can establish clearly and convincingly that the defendant had knowledge of the falsity … It is a question open to debate whether in the long run artists who openly express their political views would be offered more performance opportunities if such a rule were clearly established as applicable law.

K.O. v. Sessions, III

District Court, D. Massachusetts · Feb 3, 2020

. § 1406, the Court should refuse to extend Bivens to the claims asserted by Plaintiffs (and therefore, such claims should be dismissed) and/or the Defendants are entitled to qualified or absolute immunity for all claims … Lack of Personal Jurisdiction Plaintiffs have the burden of establishing a prima facie case of personal jurisdiction over the Defendants.

Walker v. Butterworth

457 F. Supp. 1233 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Sep 28, 1978

Helms, who was not qualified as an expert, added only that she had consulted with Terrell Walker on numerous occasions and, as a result, sought to place him in a mental hospital and refer him to Dr. Gatti. … As discussed above, that clearly was not the case.

Securities & Exchange Commission v. Auctus Fund Management, LLC

District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jul 22, 2024

This language clearly shows that, in 1934, there was no established understanding that dealers only worked for customers. … First, it is not inconsistent to imagine that market transactions, which at one time did not qualify as dealer behavior, grew in volume, profit, and proliferation such that they later qualified as such.

Arivella v. Alcatel-Lucent

755 F. Supp. 2d 353 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Dec 22, 2010

Three of the plaintiffs qualified for the maximum *358 $40,000 lump sum payment, and the fourth (Lacroix) was eligible for $38,122. (Ex. 140.) … Standing Along with demonstrating that ERISA law applies, the plaintiffs must establish that they have standing to bring a private cause of action under ERISA.

Vesprini v. Shaw Industries, Inc.

221 F. Supp. 2d 44 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · May 3, 2002

“Ambiguity” or “Stray Remarks” Defendants claim that the statements in question are “ambiguous,” and that they therefore cannot qualify as direct evidence of discrimination under Febres . … Age was clearly in the “mix” of the motives animating Shaw’s decisions; the pivotal question is whether it was determinative, b. Would the Same Decisions Have Been Made Regardless of Vesprini’s Age?

McCormick v. Metropolitan Life Insurance

514 F. Supp. 2d 158 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Sep 27, 2007

Co., 230 F.Sd 415, 420 (1st Cir.2000) (“The criteria for determining eligibility for Social Security disability benefits are substantively different than the criteria established by many insurance plans.”) … Although the particular circumstances calling for such a delay are not described, the advice with regard to timing a claimant’s application for Social Security disability benefits is clearly left, by operation of the Plan

Crawford v. Riley (In Re Wolverine, Proctor & Schwartz, LLC)

436 B.R. 253 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Mar 12, 2010

The Debtor and the Pension Plan On January 1, 1964, the Debtor established the Proctor & Schwartz Salaried Employees Retirement Plan (the “Plan”) to provide retirements benefits for certain employees. … When a District Court reviews a decision of the bankruptcy court, findings of fact are disregarded only if clearly erroneous, but questions of law are subject to de novo evaluation. See Fed. R. BaNKR. P. 8013; Groman v.

United States v. Wetmore

766 F. Supp. 2d 319 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Mar 2, 2011

Notably, the Court held that the Kansas statute clearly does not have retroactive effect. … Prentky and Phenix and having heard their testimony, this Court finds that both are qualified to offer expert testimony in this matter both with respect to a diagnosis of Mr.