Case law

Palomar Technologies, Inc. v. MRSI Systems, LLC

District Court, D. Massachusetts · May 4, 2020

Kunin therefore clearly started with the assumption that Isaacs had been located, and that it was the jumping-off point for the searches that located Harigane. … The evidence, taken as a whole, is sufficient to establish the following by a preponderance of the evidence: 1.

Lippman v. Town of Grafton

District Court, D. Massachusetts · Mar 22, 2022

However, because the Defendants did not clearly delineate the remedies which were available to the Plaintiffs and it is not readily apparent to the Court what those remedies were, the Court has determined the more prudent … To establish a claim under section 1983, Plaintiffs must establish that a person acting under the color of law denied them of a right secured by the constitution or by federal law.

Conning v. Halpern

District Court, D. Massachusetts · Apr 22, 2021

As Defendants note, [ECF No. 95 at 10], Plaintiff is clearly aware of these meetings and call. … Plaintiff carries “the burden of establishing abuse.” Id. at 393.

Doe v. Stonehill College, Inc.

District Court, D. Massachusetts · Feb 23, 2021

Roe’s self-described state of intoxication plainly failed to qualify as incapacitation under the Policy. This issue fails to plausibly allege a claim of articulable doubt. … The Sexual Misconduct Policy establishes that a person who wishes to engage in sexual activity must have the consent of their partner.

T. L. v. Kijakazi

District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jan 3, 2024

To qualify for DIB or SSI, the claimant must demonstrate that he or she is “disabled” within the meaning of the Social Security Act. 42 U.S.C. §§ 1382(a)(1), 1382c(a)(3). … 1986); see also SSR 16-3p, 2017 WL 5180304, at *10 (“The determination or decision must contain specific reasons for the weight given to the individual’s symptoms, be consistent with and supported by the evidence, and be clearly

United States Filter Corp. v. Ionics, Inc.

68 F. Supp. 2d 48 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Oct 8, 1999

Considering the factors established in Custom Accessories, I conclude that plaintiffs’ suggestion is apt in part. … Gittens may have been one who could qualify to give testimony about characteristics of one of ordinary skill in the art of electro deionization apparatuses. But in 1989 he no longer qualifies.

Imamura v. General Electric Company

District Court, D. Massachusetts · Apr 8, 2019

The ADR Center is a public mediation forum established under Japanese law. It is therefore independent from TEPCO, and TEPCO cannot unilaterally withdraw. … The Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act likely renders the Japanese government beyond the reach of the Court as well. See 28 U.S.C. § 1602.

Univ. Trading & Inv. Co., Inc. v. Bureau for Representing UA Int. in Int'l & Foreign Courts

District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jun 1, 2022

Specifically, I held that I had jurisdiction to hear UTICo’s claims against Ukraine under the commercial activity exception to sovereign immunity under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities … UTICo established through evidence that Lady Lake was held through the bear[er] shares and was under Lazarenko’s control.

Glynn Hospitality Group, Inc. v. RSUI Indemnity Company

District Court, D. Massachusetts · Nov 12, 2021

Verveine, 2020 WL 8766370, at *4 (noting that “[i]t would be unreasonable for any insured to read a policy containing [a loss of use] exclusion as nonetheless providing coverage for loss of use based on a separate provision clearly … First, as established above, the mere presence of the COVID-19 virus does not qualify as “damage” under the Policy so the civil authority provision could not have been triggered in the first instance.

Sebright v. General Electric Company

District Court, D. Massachusetts · Mar 11, 2021

GE argues that the test in prong three in DeVries is “clearly an objective standard.” GE’s Reply 14. … GE 20, ECF No. 83.18 “The government contractor defense . . . generally immunizes government contractors from civil liability arising out of the performance of federal procurement

The Satanic Temple, Inc. v. City of Boston

District Court, D. Massachusetts · Apr 6, 2022

Following Plaintiff’s filing of the aforementioned letter objection and explanatory letter, Plaintiff filed opposition focusing heavily on the question of whether and when Mayor Wu would qualify as a “high-ranking government … to commit to producing Mayor Wu as part and parcel of the parties’ attempted negotiations to amend the noticed deposition date and therefore avoid filing of the present motion on an emergency basis, though it was not clearly

Ryan

District Court, D. Massachusetts · Dec 30, 2025

As explained above, this suffices to establish personal jurisdiction over NEFCO GP I and NEFCO GP II. … Accordingly, “liability would clearly ‘attach . . . if an entity were to enter into a transaction for the sole purpose of discarding a used and no longer useful hazardous substance.’” Id.

United States v. Gonzalez

719 F. Supp. 2d 167 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jun 30, 2010

The inevitable discovery exception to the exclusionary rule does not qualify this conclusion. … He was not thinking clearly. Smith testified that after Gonzalez was handcuffed, he read Gonzalez his Miranda rights.

Leclair v. GlaxoSmithKline LLC

District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jun 1, 2021

It stated that “[its] position is that the use of [Zofran] in human pregnancy has not been established and is not recommended.” (Id.). … Therefore, these malformations would not qualify as adverse reactions.” (Id., Ex. 37 at 4051).

Alantra LLC v. Apex Industrial Technologies LLC

District Court, D. Massachusetts · Oct 19, 2022

Apex concluded that the asset sale to Fastenal was not a qualifying transaction under the Engagement Letter and declined to pay the requested transaction fee. … “To establish actual damages, plaintiffs must come forward with evidence to establish the existence of actual damages that they suffered that were directly and proximately caused by [the] breach.” Zurich Am.

Allstate Insurance Company v. Fougere

District Court, D. Massachusetts · Mar 28, 2022

The information that Allstate had was sufficient to establish the defendants’ breach of the confidentiality provisions of the EA Agreements. … Not surprisingly, the defendants argue that Allstate’s position on settlement was not clearly expressed to them.

Victim Rights Law Center v. DeVos

District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jul 28, 2021

Furthermore, by imposing mandatory dismissal requirements and more restrictive definitions, the Proposed Rule clearly narrows the scope of Title IX procedures compared to the Department’s … Such “archaic and overbroad generalizations” about women certainly would qualify as sex discrimination if they were present here.

United States v. Kandirakis

441 F. Supp. 2d 282 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Aug 1, 2006

In its place, the Court established a standard of “reasonableness”. … That fact alone establishes their continuing importance ....

Sunningdale Ventures, Inc. v. Martin

District Court, D. Massachusetts · Mar 31, 2018

referenced this telephone conversation, recounting that in the conversation “we advised you that we would look at a possible workout option to see if you will qualify for the program.” … First, establishing promissory estoppel, or, under Massachusetts terminology, detrimental reliance, Loranger Constr. Corp. v. E. F.

Soo v. Bone Biologics Corporation

District Court, D. Massachusetts · Aug 12, 2020

In Section 3(b)(iii), the FPSA clearly defines the possible ways the agreement could be terminated for cause: (a) A material breach by [Plaintiffs] of this Agreement … Plaintiffs must therefore establish that MTFB does not qualify for the affiliate privilege because it acted outside of its shared economic interest with Bone. See, e.g., James Cable, LLC v. Millenium Digit.