Case law

Sues

District Court, D. Massachusetts · May 21, 2026

Sues fails to establish either basis. … Second, even if “Doober” were sufficiently distinctive to qualify for protection, Sues nevertheless fails to allege facts supporting a plausible likelihood of consumer confusion.

Mall Properties, Inc. v. Marsh

672 F. Supp. 561 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Sep 8, 1987

THE STANDARD OF REVIEW The standard of review to be applied in this case is established by the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 706 (2)(A), (D) (1982). … Although Metropolitan Edison apparently qualifies at least parts of the Hanly ruling, particularly the reliance on fears of disturbances, the close proximity of the jail to the apartment houses, and the court’s focus on noise

McFee v. Yeh

District Court, D. Massachusetts · Nov 15, 2021

They filed a motion to dismiss plaintiff’s second amended complaint (#105) based on their immunity from suit, and plaintiff’s failure to exhaust administrative remedies and to state a claim.2 A report and recommendation … received is ‘so clearly inadequate as to amount to a refusal to provide essential care.’” (quoting Miranda v. Munoz, 770 F.2d 255, 259 (1st Cir. 1985))). Dr.

LaRose v. OMalley

District Court, D. Massachusetts · Dec 2, 2024

SSR 85-28, which governs medical impairments that are not severe, explicitly required the ALJ here to find that the medical evidence “clearly established” that Plaintiff’s back and rib impairment was “not medically severe … Accordingly, in reviewing the ALJ’s non-severity determination, the Court asks “whether the ALJ had substantial evidence to find that [pursuant to SSR 85-28] the medical evidence clearly established that [Plaintiff] did

Cummings v. City of Newton

District Court, D. Massachusetts · Feb 6, 2018

Section 1983 creates a cause of action against persons who, under color of state law, deprive a United States citizen of any “rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and … On the other hand, Cummings alleges that at the press conference prior to the hearing, Warren “had already clearly stated his intent to terminate plaintiff.”

Muehe v. Boston, City of

District Court, D. Massachusetts · Nov 2, 2021

Supp. 2d at 209, many of their entries qualified as “non-core work.” … Additionally, the rates sought by attorneys from Disability Law Center (DLC) are based on rates established by the Massachusetts Law Reform Institute and have recently been approved by this court.

Smith v. City of Boston

144 F. Supp. 3d 177 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Nov 16, 2015

Trial exhibits without clearly identifiable titles are referred to simply by their numbering. . … Second, the City bears the burden of establishing the validity of the E & E component, meaning it must establish a relationship between the content of the training/experience that is rewarded, and the content of the job.

United States v. Trustees of Boston College

831 F. Supp. 2d 435 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Dec 16, 2011

Whitney, 124 U.S. at 194 , 8 S.Ct. 456 (establishing the “last-in-time rule”). The Court thus will analyze the two laws in chronological order. 1. … The term “laws of the Requested States” appears multiple times in the UK-MLAT, but unfortunately these references are not clearly identical in context.

Thompson v. PennyMac Loan Services LLC

District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jul 16, 2025

unfairness, “[w]e look to (1) whether the practice . . . is within at least the penumbra of some common-law, statutory, or other established concept of unfairness; (2) whether it is immoral, unethical, oppressive … And further, it clearly provides that Evolve conveyed an interest to PennyMac. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Count XI claim against PennyMac, as stated in the Original Complaint, must be dismissed.

Goldman v. Winn

565 F. Supp. 2d 200 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jul 1, 2008

In 1993, Goldman had only two prior convictions that qualified for Career Offender purposes. One was a 1977 conviction in the Massachusetts Superior Court for the alleged kidnapping of Jeffrey Lopes. … To establish prejudice on collateral review, a petitioner must establish that the error complained of had “substantial and injurious effect or influence.” Sustache, 221 F.3d at 18 ; see also Ellis v.

Capen v. Campbell

District Court, D. Massachusetts · Dec 21, 2023

While there are many aspects of that framework that are unresolved, it is useful to begin by identifying several guideposts that have been clearly established by the Supreme Court. 6 After Heller and McDonald, the First … Under the circumstances, the weapons qualify as “dangerous and unusual” within the meaning of the analytical framework of the Second Amendment. d.

Kolenovic v. Cowan

District Court, D. Massachusetts · Nov 9, 2021

§ 2254, alleging that the SJC’s ruling on his claim for ineffective assistance of counsel involved an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law. … established federal law.

Fine v. Guardian Life Insurance Company of America

District Court, D. Massachusetts · Mar 7, 2022

The agency was established by Fine’s father and, by 2018, was headed by Fine’s brother, Randy Fine (Pl. … Recovery Under Gram If Fine can recover at all, it is under the doctrine established in Gram I.

Schuster v. Encore Boston Harbor

District Court, D. Massachusetts · Feb 27, 2023

The objecting party must “(a) apprise the trial court . . . that she considers the affidavit defective, and (b) spell out the nature of the ostensible defects clearly and distinctly.” Perez v. … “Although whether a particular set of acts, in their factual setting, is unfair or deceptive is a question of fact . . . the boundaries of what may qualify for consideration as a [Chapter] 93A violation is a question of

United States of America ex rel. v. Janssen Biotech, Inc.

District Court, D. Massachusetts · Mar 9, 2023

United States, 284 F.3d 236, 245, 247 (1st Cir. 2002) (holding that communications must have been intended to be confidential and made for the purpose of giving or obtaining legal advice to qualify as privileged and disclosing … The court rejects Janssen’s assertion that the February 2020 cutoff date established by Chief Judge Saylor for discovery concerning the programs at issue in this case applies to Janssen’s communications with the DOJ and

United States of America v. Grand Canyon University, Inc.

District Court, D. Massachusetts · Sep 6, 2022

In order to qualify for these programs and, thus, receive federal funds, postsecondary institutions must meet several requirements. Id. … Work from home and flex schedule, however, are distinctly not the type of benefit that can be categorized as a “payment,” or “something of value”; these are instead ‘perks’ not clearly

Doelger v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.

District Court, D. Massachusetts · Sep 27, 2024

Defendants contend that this Court should refrain from considering Yoon’s declaration when considering Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment because she makes 1) statements precluded by spousal immunity; 2) “statements … Plaintiffs argue that Peter’s net worth and JPMC’s understanding of what it was is clearly a disputed material fact. [Dkt. 391 at 13].

Affholter v. Citigroup Global Markets Inc

District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jun 17, 2024

The complaint thus clearly violates Rule 9. In addition, the complaint fails to plead scienter with particularity. … However, the statute provides that “no person may rely upon any conduct that would have been actionable as fraud in the purchase or sale of securities to establish a violation of [civil RICO].” 18 U.S.C. § 1964(c); see

Wong v. FMR LLC

District Court, D. Massachusetts · Feb 14, 2020

Counts I to IV of Plaintiffs’ Complaint, which claim various breaches of fiduciary duty, require Plaintiffs to plausibly allege that Defendants, who are not named fiduciaries, nevertheless qualify as “fiduciar[ies] with … Cir. 2019) (“Fiduciary status turns on whether the service provider can force plans or participants to accept its choices about plan management or assets.”); Renfro, 671 F.3d at 323 (“[A] directed trustee is essentially immune

TurboCare Division of Demag Delaval Turbomachinery Corp. v. General Electric Co.

45 F. Supp. 2d 110 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Mar 31, 1999

(“Indeed, new prior art not before the PTO may so clearly invalidate a patent that the burden [of demonstrating invalidity] is fully sustained merely by proving its existence and applying the proper law.”). 3. … contract or law to assign, grant, convey or license, any rights in the invention to any person who could not be classified as an independent inventor if that person had made the invention, or to any concern who would not qualify