Case law

Howe v. United States

632 F. Supp. 700 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Apr 18, 1986

See, Committee for Monetary Reform v. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System; 766 F.2d 538, 539 (D.C.Cir.1985); Hor ne v. Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, 344 F.2d 725, 727-28 (8th Cir.1965). … See also, Reuss v.

Di Blasi v. Baker

404 F. Supp. 654 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Dec 2, 1975

See McDonald v. … For other decisions to the same effect see Edwards v. St. Louis-San Francisco Railroad Co., 361 F.2d 946, 953 (7 Cir. 1966); D’Elia v. New York, N. H. & H. R. R., 230 F.

Nextel Communications of the Mid-Atlantic, Inc. v. Town of Hanson

311 F. Supp. 2d 142 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Mar 26, 2004

See Papasan v. … Laws ch. 143, § 100 (State Board authorized both to hear appeals under Code, and variances); Shriners’ Hosp. for Crippled Children v.

A123 SYSTEMS, INC. v. Hydro-Quebec

657 F. Supp. 2d 276 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Sep 28, 2009

Allen Organ Co. v. Kimball Int’l, Inc., 839 F.2d 1556, 1563 (Fed.Cir.1988). 12 . Genentech v. Eli Lilly & Co., 998 F.2d 931, 937 (Fed.Cir.1993). 13 . Id. 14 . Id. 15 . Id. 16 . Dupont Pharms. Co. v. … Corp. v. Bd.

Creative Environments, Inc. v. Estabrook

491 F. Supp. 547 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jun 17, 1980

Kadar Corp. v. … Griffin v.

Dunkin' Donuts Franchised Restaurants LLC v. Wometco Donas Inc.

53 F. Supp. 3d 221 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Sep 11, 2014

Brown (“Brown”) is the president of both companies. B. Factual Background On February 26, 2001, the Franchise Agreement was signed by a Dunkin’ Donuts representative and Brown on behalf of Wometco Donas. … See Tatan Mgmt. v.

Kowalezyk v. Walsh

482 F. Supp. 959 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Dec 26, 1979

Lefkowitz v. Líder, 443 F.Supp. 352, 354-355 (D.Mass.1978). … Gunther v. San Diego & Arizona Eastern Railway Co, 382 U.S. 257 , 86 S.Ct. 368 , 15 L.Ed.2d 308 (1965). See also Union Pacific Railroad Co. v.

United States v. Smith

285 F. 751 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Aug 23, 1922

S. v. American Woolen Co. [D. C.] 265 Fed. 405 ): but it was necessary that some form of control should be exercised over it. … Hamilton v. Dallin, 21 Wall. 73, 90, 91 , 22 L. Ed. 528 ; Silliman v. U. S., 101 U. S. 465 , 25 L. Ed. 987 . It is said in Daniels v. Tearney, 102 U. S. 415 , at page 421 ( 26 L.

In Re Acushnet River & New Bedford Harbor Proceedings Re Alleged PCB Pollution

675 F. Supp. 22 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Nov 6, 1987

Robertson v. Railway Labor Board, supra at 625, 45 S.Ct. at 624 ; Federal Trade Commission v. Browning, 435 F.2d 96, 99 (D.C.Cir.1970); Violet v. Picillo, 613 F.Supp. 1563, 1570 (D.R.I.1985). … "[R]ushed through a lame duck session of Congress," Mayor and Board of Aldermen of Boonton v. Drew Chemical Corp., 621 F.Supp. 663, 668 (D.N.J.1985), quoting State of Ohio ex rel Brown v.

United States v. Hampton

109 F. Supp. 3d 431 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jun 18, 2015

In Brady v. … United States v. Brown, 2015 WL 1268159 , at *4 (D.Mass. Mar. 19, 2015) (citing Wilkins II, 754 F.3d at 28 ).

Limone v. United States

271 F. Supp. 2d 345 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jul 17, 2003

Notwithstanding this pressure, on August 1, 1983, the Board voted to recommend commutation of Limone’s sentence. … See 28 U.S.C. § 2679 (d)(1); Lyons v. Brown, 158 F.3d 605, 606 (1st Cir.1998).

Lombard v. United States

28 F. Supp. 2d 44 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Nov 30, 1998

Stanton v. … Brown testified that she relied on her brother to handle any matters relating to the property. (Dep. Tr. at 14.)

Najas Realty, LLC v. Seekonk Water District

68 F. Supp. 3d 246 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Dec 23, 2014

See Clark v. … See Hunt v. Massi, 773 F.3d 361, 367 (1st Cir.2014) (quoting Ford v.

Ex parte Laime

244 F. 279 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · May 11, 1917

Supposing the testimony of the aliens failed to satisfy you of the allegations, would you still notify him of his right to counsel V A. No; wo might postpone it, for some one reason or other. Q. … A. -, ought not to be followed, but that such cases ought to be heard by the court upon the question of the alien’s right to enter, or to remain in, the country; citing Chin You v. U. S., 208 U. S. 8 , 28 Sup.

United States v. Walker

304 F. Supp. 970 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Sep 11, 1969

Yates v. … See, e. g., United States v.

Holt v. Golden

880 F. Supp. 2d 199 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jul 25, 2012

Shoen v. SAC Holding Corp., 122 Nev. 621 , 137 P.3d 1171, 1181-84 (2006). The first standard, which comes from Aronson v. … Lewis, 473 A.2d 805, 814 (Del.1984), applies when the claim involves a matter where the majority of the board acted. The second standard, which comes from Rales v.

Taydus v. Cisneros

902 F. Supp. 278 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jul 6, 1995

Brown, 22 F.3d at 520 (“back pay, as a claim for money damages, falls outside scope of the APA”); see generally Bowen v. … An action under this court’s general federal question jurisdiction remains proper provided a statute exists waiving sovereign immunity. 13 Ward v. Brown, 22 F.3d at 519 .

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

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

See Mazzari v. … See also Aqua-Chem, Inc. v.

Local 369, Utility Workers Union v. Boston Edison Co.

588 F. Supp. 800 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · May 18, 1984

See, e.g., Gillentine v. McKeand, 426 F.2d 717, 721 (1st Cir.1970). … V. An alternative basis exists for vacating the arbitration award.

O'HARA v. Menino

312 F. Supp. 2d 99 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Apr 8, 2004

See O’Hara v. … In Mills v.