Case law

Melcher v. Lowe's Home Centers, LLC

District Court, D. Massachusetts · Aug 3, 2022

Here, “[t]he cited disparity between the declaration and deposition testimony is not such that the Court must regard it as ‘clearly contradictory.’” Mantha v. … Not only is there nothing in the record establishing that this “understanding,” which the Store Manager phrased as a question, was correct, but also, even if it was correct at the time, it does not establish that Mahaffey

Soni v. Wespiser

District Court, D. Massachusetts · Aug 19, 2019

Defendants, however, do nothing to explain how the facts of this case establish the privilege. … Ct. 1984) (“The burden is upon the defendants to show facts which create the qualified privilege.

Louissaint v. McDonough

District Court, D. Massachusetts · Aug 20, 2025

The claim based on a hostile work environment is clearly inadequate. … complaint is clearly protected conduct. According to the complaint, plaintiff initiated that process on July 9, 2018.

Aquino v. Pacesetter Adjustment Co.

416 F. Supp. 2d 181 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Nov 7, 2005

To the contrary, Pearson immediately qualified his statement by adding that he would “look[ ] into” the question of whether March Taxi carried excess insurance, thus making it clear to Keenan that he had no personal knowledge … Aquino’s request for production of documents, served January 18, 2002, clearly called for the production of the declaration pages for both the Ace primary policy and the General Star excess policy.

Hooke v. Colvin

20 F. Supp. 3d 286 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · May 16, 2014

result in death or which has lasted or can be expected to last for a continuous period of not less than 12 months.” 125 The Commissioner employs a five-step sequential evaluation process to determine whether an individual qualifies … ordered until January 3, 2008. 164 Moreover, Hooke concedes that the words “cognitive problems” do not appear in the records until February 28, 2008. 165 Nonetheless, Hooke contends that the February 28, 2008 diagnosis is clearly

Astellas Institute for Regenerative Medicine v. ImStem Biotechnology, Inc.

District Court, D. Massachusetts · Feb 5, 2021

These secretions stop T cells (immune cells that cause inflammation) from proliferating and attract existing stem cells, giving MSCs significant clinical potential. [Id. … “On the other hand, one does not qualify as a joint inventor by merely assisting the actual inventor after conception of the claimed invention.” Ethicon, 135 F.3d at 1460.

Mintz v. Roman Catholic Bishop of Springfield

424 F. Supp. 2d 309 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Mar 30, 2006

offense to the Establishment Clause.” … L. ch. 40A, § 17 is well established.

Sunergy Solutions LLC v. Underriner

District Court, D. Massachusetts · Mar 25, 2025

These facts clearly satisfy the basic elements for wire fraud. … Sunergy’s allegations would qualify its business leads as trade secrets.

Day v. Gracy

District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jul 20, 2018

The Gracys contend that the non-profit theater was not a business, and that “the mere borrowing of money by a non-profit corporation . . . does not constitute ‘trade’ or ‘commerce’ sufficient to establish a claim under … However, the complaint clearly alleges more than just a breach of contract. Indeed, Count 1, which the Gracys do not seek to dismiss for failure to state a claim, is for fraud.

Garcia v. A. Boncher

District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jul 24, 2018

Garcia’s civil commitment clearly qualifies as “custody” under the meaning of § 2241. Cf. Duncan v. … Thus, the language used in his amended petition does not definitively establish the proper vehicle for his claim. Ultimately, I must look to the thrust of Mr.

Johnston v. Mitchell

213 F. Supp. 3d 282 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Oct 3, 2016

with respect to any claim that was adjudicated on the merits in State court proceedings unless the adjudication of the claim— (1) resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly … wjhere a state court’s decision is unaccompanied by an explanation, the habeas petitioner’s burden still must be met by showing there was no reasonable basis for the state court to deny relief a summary denial of a petition qualified

Celano v. Fulcrum Therapeutics, Inc.

District Court, D. Massachusetts · Mar 27, 2025

Other statements, if not outright puffery, are forward-looking statements immunized by the PSLRA’s safe harbor provision. See 15 U.S.C. § 78u-5. … Mass. 2004), on which Plaintiff attempts to rely to establish scienter. See Opposition at 18 [Doc. No. 38].

Haywood v. Fitchburg Public Schools

District Court, D. Massachusetts · Sep 25, 2025

courts across the country are divided on whether hairstyle constitutes expressive conduct, and in the absence of any new precedent from the First Circuit or this Court, we adhere to the holding that a hairstyle does not qualify … school “knew of the harassment”; (4) the harassment occurred “in [the school’s] programs and activities”; and (5) the school “was deliberately indifferent to the harassment such that its response (or lack thereof) is clearly

Dooley v. Liberty Mutual Insurance

307 F. Supp. 2d 234 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Feb 26, 2004

The partial summary judgment is merely a pretrial adjudication that certain issues shall be deemed established for the trial of the case.”). 2. … By enacting the Portal-to-Portal Act, Congress manifested an intent to immunize employers from liability for ordinary commutes. See Reich, 45 F.3d at 651.

Boniface v. Viliena

District Court, D. Massachusetts · Sep 30, 2019

Mass. 1995) (“[F]ederal statutory law clearly creates the cause of action upon which [plaintiff’s] lawsuit is founded. … Although “many courts have determined that section 1331 is sufficient in and of itself to establish federal jurisdiction over TVPA claims,” Boniface, 338 F.

Woolf v. United States

210 F. Supp. 3d 258 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Sep 28, 2016

The evidence presented at trial did not establish that Nogueira acted recklessly in throwing the baseball to third base during play in the game. … Because of his lifelong risk of seizures, need to avoid future head injuries, and numbness in his left hand, he will likely not qualify for work in the higher paying trades at that education level.

Da Veiga v. Santander Bank

District Court, D. Massachusetts · Sep 21, 2023

On or about January 23, 2022, she was “notified by Unemployment that she didn’t qualify for payment.” Id. | 22. … A limited exception to this general rule exists when employment is terminated contrary to a clearly established public policy. See Murray, 821 F.3d at 89.

Maldanado v. Cultural Care, Inc.

District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jul 28, 2021

“[W]here a party has given ‘clear answers to unambiguous questions’ in discovery, that party cannot ‘create a conflict and resist summary judgment with an affidavit that is clearly contradictory,’ unless there … Here, filing these affidavits after the close of class discovery suggests that the statements were made solely in an after-the-fact attempt to rehabilitate a failure to establish class standing. Cf. Orta-Castro v.

Cell Genesys, Inc. v. Applied Research Systems ARS Holding, N.V.

499 F. Supp. 2d 59 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Aug 13, 2007

It states, in pertinent part: When any claim of an application ... is rejected, the inventor of the subject matter of the rejected claim ... or the party qualified under §§ 1.42, 1.43, or 1.47, may submit an appropriate oath … See 28 U.S.C. § 2201 , and by establishing a single court of appeals to decide patent cases. See In re: Columbia University Patent Litigation, 330 F.Supp.2d at 17 .

McCants v. Alves

District Court, D. Massachusetts · Oct 26, 2022

A state court decision involves “an unreasonable application of” clearly established federal law “if the state court identifies the correct governing legal rule from [the Supreme] Court’s cases but unreasonably applies … For purposes of habeas review, “[t]he Strickland standard qualifies as clearly established federal law.” Janosky v. St. Amand, 594 F.3d 39, 47 (1st Cir. 2010) (citing, inter alia, Ouber v.