Case law

Deppe v. Lufkin

31 F. Supp. 323 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jan 23, 1940

Steamship Louvain arrived in Boston from Antwerp and that upon examination by an Immigration Inspector, eleven of the crew were found by him not to be bona fide seamen, and the master was ordered to detain these men on board … Rio Cape Line, Ltd. v. United States of America [ 89 Ct.Cl. 307 ], Court of Claims, June 5, 1939.”

Kay v. Frodl

District Court, D. Massachusetts · Aug 14, 2024

See, e.g., Ford v. Takeda Pharmaceuticals U.S.A., Inc., 2023 WL 3679031, at * 1 (D. Mass. Mar. 31, 2023). A. … See, e.g., Hollywood Firefighters’ Pension Fund v. Malone, 2021 WL 5179219 (Del. Ch. Nov. 8, 2021).

Union Cartage Co. v. United States

244 F. Supp. 1005 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jun 28, 1965

On October 28, 1964, the Temporary Authorities Board of the Commission issued an order denying the application. A petition for reconsideration was filed by Mac Transport on November 18, 1964. … J-T Transport Co. v. United States, 1961, W.D.Mo., 191 F.Supp. 593 ; Bowen Transports v. United States, 1953, E.D.Ill., 116 F.Supp. 115 .

Carvalho v. Fregata

42 F. Supp. 404 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Dec 17, 1941

See Carumbo v. … Every person, apprentices excepted, who shall be employed or engaged in any capacity on board a vessel shall be deemed and taken to be a seaman. “5.

Acadia Healthcare Company, Inc. v. City of Fitchburg

District Court, D. Massachusetts · Sep 30, 2025

Another session of this Court has held that zoning board officials may invoke quasi- judicial immunity in certain circumstances. See Brockton Power LLC v. City of Brockton, 948 F. Supp. 2d 48, 65 (D. … Bannon v.

In re Pettingill & Co.

137 F. 143 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Apr 18, 1905

Browne on the Statute of Frauds, § 345a. … In Hibberd v. Bailey, 129 Fed. 575 , 64 C. C.

Dubeau v. COMMANDING OFFICER, NAVAL RESERVE CENTER, BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS

440 F. Supp. 747 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · May 12, 1977

The respondent Commanding Officer, under date of March 15, 1977, notified petitioner of the order to perform 27 days of involuntary active duty on board the U.S.S. … Peavy v. Warner, 493 F.2d 748, 750 (5th Cir. 1974) and cases cited therein. 3 . The petitioner apparently places principal reliance on the case of Shelton v.

Orbusneich Medical Co. v. Boston Scientific Corp.

694 F. Supp. 2d 106 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Mar 18, 2010

Brown v. Hearst Corp., 862 F.Supp. 622, 626 (D.Mass.1994). 16 . Van Dusen v. Barrack, 376 U.S. 612, 639 , 84 S.Ct. 805 , 11 L.Ed.2d 945 (1964). 17 . 17 Moore's Fed. Practice § 111 .20(c)(iii). 18 . See Barry v. … Wilson v. Kellogg Brown & Root, Inc., 525 F.3d 370, 379 (4th Cir.2008); Blacksmith Investments, LLC v.

Valentin v. Town of Natick

District Court, D. Massachusetts · Sep 27, 2022

See Macone v. … V.

Montana v. Abbot Laboratories

266 F. Supp. 2d 250 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jun 11, 2003

Thomason, 22 F.3d 1455, 1460 (9th Cir.1994) (same); Menowitz v. Brown, 991 F.2d 36, 40-41 (2nd Cir.1993) (same); In re Korean Air Lines Disaster of September 1, 1983, 829 F.2d 1171, 1176 (D.C.Cir.1987) (same). … See, e.g., Lapides v. Board of Regents of the Univ. Sys. of Ga., 535 U.S. 613, 620 , 122 S.Ct. 1640 , 152 L.Ed.2d 806 (2002) (citing Chicago, Rock Island, & Pac. Ry. Co. v.

City of Boston v. Massachusetts Port Authority

320 F. Supp. 1317 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jan 19, 1971

Hunter v. City of Pittsburgh, 207 U.S. 161, 178-179 , 28 S.Ct. 40, 46 , 52 L.Ed. 151 ; Risty v. Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry., 270 U.S. 378, 389, 390 , 46 S.Ct. 236 , 70 L.Ed. 641 ; Coleman v. … In 1948 operation of the airport passed to the Commissioner of Airport Management and the State Airport Management Board. Mass.St. 1948, c. 637.

Binkiewicz v. Scafati

281 F. Supp. 233 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Feb 23, 1968

Hayes v. Boslow, 4 Cir., 1964, 336 F.2d 31, 32 ; see Brown v. Allen, 1953, 344 U.S. 443, 447 , 73 S.Ct. 397 , 97 L.Ed. 469 . … In Rosencranz v.

Modell v. Eliot Savings Bank

139 F.R.D. 17 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Oct 16, 1991

Opiela v. Bruck, at 260. … Tolan v. Computervision, 696 F.Supp. at 778 , citing Grossman v.

ENTERTAINMENT PUBLICATIONS, INC. v. Goodman

67 F. Supp. 2d 15 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Oct 4, 1999

In American Airlines, Inc. v. … Toed v.

United States v. Khalaf

116 F. Supp. 2d 210 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jun 22, 1999

See also Janvier v. … In United States v.

Isaac v. Harvard University

603 F. Supp. 22 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jul 31, 1984

Burns v. Sullivan, 619 F.2d 99 (1st Cir.1980). This is in no way affected by Patsy v. Board of Regents, 457 U.S. 496 , 102 S.Ct. 2557 , 73 L.Ed.2d 172 (1982). Plaintiff did not timely file this complaint. … Our circuit’s decision in Burns v.

Williams v. City of Brockton

146 F. Supp. 3d 290 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Nov 13, 2015

Board (collectively, the “Retirement Board Defendants"). … See Frei v.

Diaz v. Matal

268 F. Supp. 3d 267 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Aug 1, 2017

Merlonghi v. United States, 620 F.3d 50, 54 (1st Cir. 2010) (quoting Aversa v. United States, 99 F.3d 1200, 1210 (1st Cir. 1996)); Carroll v. … Inter alia, the Federal Circuit wrote that "[w]hile [ 28 U.S.C. § 1295 ] authorizes this court to hear appeals from certain decisions of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, here Mr.

Montoy v. Spaulding

District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jun 26, 2020

See Battle v. Ledford, 912 F.3d 708, 718-20 (4th Cir. 2019); Terry v. Spencer, 888 F.3d 890, 894 (7th Cir. 2018); Gonzalez v. Hasty, 651 F.3d 318, 323-24 (2d Cir. 2011); Pearson v. … Sec'y Dep't of Corr., 775 F.3d 598, 603 (3d Cir. 2015); Brown v. Valoff, 422 F.3d 926, 942–43 (9th Cir. 2005); Napier v. Preslicka, 314 F.3d 528, 534 n.3 (11th Cir. 2002); Brown v.

JT IP Holding, LLC v. Florence

District Court, D. Massachusetts · Sep 1, 2020

Harhen v. Brown, 730 N.E.2d 859, 865 (Mass. 2000) (citing Bartlett v. … . & H.R.R., 109 N.E. 452, 454 (Mass. 1915) (holding plaintiff not required to make demand on board of directors when demand would be “useless” or “an idle ceremony” because of board’s interested status)).