Case law

In Re Relafen Antitrust Litigation

360 F. Supp. 2d 166 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Feb 22, 2005

that an antitrust defendant is “entitled to Noerr immunity.” Id. at 63, 113 S.Ct. 1920 . … Farey-Jones, 359 F.3d 1066, 1079 (9th Cir.2004), *183 Judge Lindsay’s findings were not clearly and convincingly of this sort.

Deitrick v. Greaney

23 F. Supp. 758 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jun 16, 1938

In all his actions Karnow shows clearly that the registration of the stock in his name was never intended to be a purchase by him .of the stock, but was only for the accommodation of the bank. … Greaney cannot establish his immunity from liability on this note by a claim that he stands on an equal footing with Karnow. See Lyons v. Westwater, 3 Cir., 181 F. 681 ; Westwater v. Lyons, 3 Cir., 193 F. 817 .

Kates v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance

509 F. Supp. 477 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Mar 9, 1981

The most that can be said in support of the argument is that the rule of resolving ambiguities against the insurer is well established and often applied, and no case can be found that clearly indicates that it would not be … Literally no ambiguity exists when a qualifying clause clearly takes away what to an ordinary reader an eye-catching clause appears to give.

National Association of the Deaf v. Harvard University

District Court, D. Massachusetts · Mar 28, 2019

office of a health care provider, hospital, or other service establishment … information,’ and (2) ‘suffice to establish the affirmative defense with certitude.’”

Schand v. City of Springfield

District Court, D. Massachusetts · May 6, 2019

Trial courts in weighing the question of qualified immunity should not “define clearly established law at a high level of generality.” Id. (quoting Kisela v. … established to deprive Defendants of the protection of qualified immunity.

Richard v. Industrial Commercial Electrical Corp.

337 F. Supp. 2d 279 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Aug 20, 2004

In the instant case, ICE has failed to establish that Richard’s .actions constituted gross misconduct under any definition of that term contemplated by Massachusetts law or federal case law. 12. … If Richard engaged in- any misconduct, which is doubtful, it clearly was not gross and did not warrant a denial of Richard’s COBRA *283 benefits.

National Ass'n of the Deaf v. Netflix, Inc.

869 F. Supp. 2d 196 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jun 19, 2012

The ADA lists twelve categories of entities that qualify as places of public accommodation. 42 U.S.C. § 12181 (7). … The web site may qualify as: a “service establishment” in that it provides customers with the ability to stream video programming through the internet; a “place of exhibition or entertainment” in that it displays movies,

Adedeji v. United States

782 F. Supp. 688 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jan 23, 1992

These travels and dates were clearly reflected in her passport, which the customs inspectors examined on May 12, 1986. 8 . Mrs. … Public officials have no immunity and are liable under the MCRA for their discretionary acts when "they have violated a right under Federal or State constitutional or statutory law that was ‘clearly established’ at the time

Rivera v. U.S. Tsubaki, Inc.

84 F. Supp. 3d 51 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Feb 5, 2015

The potential utility of the CBA to resolve Plaintiffs claim is, therefore, clearly limited. … Indeed, the only relevance the CBA appears to have is that it establishes the right of the “qualified applicant with the greatest seniority” to open positions and states that Defendant and Union have agreed to create a “process

Boston Chapter, NAACP, Inc. v. Beecher

371 F. Supp. 507 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Feb 11, 1974

However, these Guidelines must.be read in the context of certain precedent binding upon this Court (Griggs, supra; Castro, supra) which clearly implies that facial compliance with the minimum standards may not be sufficient … And it is concerned with the public which deserves to have a full complement of qualified firefighters protecting the cities and towns of the Commonwealth.

Rosario v. United States

824 F. Supp. 268 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · May 10, 1993

Since the complex medical issues involved here are beyond the “common knowledge” of this Court, Plaintiffs must first establish by expert testimony the average degree of care and skill exercised by qualified practitioners … practicing a specialty, by the average qualified physician practicing that specialty.

In re Luftig

162 F. 322 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Sep 13, 1905

offense described in section 29b (4), the bankrupt was guilty of the same offense if he participated in Rosenberg’s commission of it by virtue of section 1 (19), I am still unable to regard Rosenberg’s guilt as sufficiently established … swear on May 25,1903, that he then owned stock to the amount of $5,-000, and also his testimony on January 20, 1904, in the same hearing, that the amount of stock he swore to on May 25, 1903, was $2,500, is, in my opinion, clearly

Mercurio v. Town of Sherborn

District Court, D. Massachusetts · Dec 19, 2017

Qualified Immunity The defendants argue that they enjoy qualified immunity for their conduct even if they used excessive force. … “The doctrine of qualified immunity shields officials from civil liability so long as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable

Doe v. Town of Plymouth

825 F. Supp. 1102 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jul 2, 1993

Turning to the first argument, it is well established that plaintiff has a constitutional right to privacy sufficient to establish liability under section 1983. Daury v. Smith, 842 F.2d 9, 13 (1st Cir.1988). … Ryan, 827 F.2d 836 (1st Cir.1987), the.court determined that the right to prevent disclosure of the contents of a court ordered psychiatric report was not “clearly established”, prior to June 1983. Id. at 844 .

de Antonio v. Solomon

42 F.R.D. 320 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jun 30, 1967

The danger that Marilyn Solomon will ever be prosecuted for adultery, if adulterous conduct should be established in this action, is at least remote but it is not “purely fantastic.” … State of New Jersey, supra, provide the defendant here with' immunity from having his answers used against him in a possible future criminal proceeding. This view was suggested by Mr.

Scarpa v. Murphy

624 F. Supp. 33 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jan 30, 1985

County of Burke, 660 F.2d at 114 (“single incident ... normally insufficient to establish supervisory inaction upon which § 1983 liability may be based”) and Landrigan v. … The logical fall-out from this concept is significant. • For example, it has been held that since municipalities are not entitled to a qualified immunity defense, Owen v.

Dickow v. United States

740 F. Supp. 2d 231 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Aug 18, 2010

It does not waive sovereign immunity to permit a suit against the government; rather, a separate waiver is required. … In any event, the purported failure of receipt by the Executor does not establish a failure to send by the IRS.

Renzullo v. Town of Wakefield

District Court, D. Massachusetts · Feb 28, 2023

Whether Officers are Entitled to Qualified Immunity Defendants argue that the Officers are protected from liability by qualified immunity because any constitutional violations were not of clearly established … Accordingly, Ryan is not entitled to qualified immunity as to excessive force.

Dunn v. Barry

District Court, D. Massachusetts · May 17, 2021

Defendants here claim to be entitled to the protection afforded by the doctrine of qualified immunity. … “If either of the two prongs is not met - i.e., if the facts do not show a constitutional violation or the right in question was not clearly established - the officer is immune.

Santana v. Deluxe Corp.

12 F. Supp. 2d 162 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jun 4, 1998

To his credit, Santana readily admits that he is “clearly not an ‘employee’ for purposes of establishing ‘current employment status.’ ” See Plaintiffs Memorandum in Support of Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment at 20. … But there is more here, establishing why the negative pregnant argument should be treated as an interpretive trump card.