Case law

Bryant v. Caritas Norwood Hospital

345 F. Supp. 2d 155 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Nov 24, 2004

In order to recover under the ADA, then, claimants need to establish that they have a .qualifying impairment and they “also need to demonstrate that the impairment limits a major life activity.” Id. … The “exemption from heavy lifting” proposed accommodation clearly fails the first prong of the Reed test.

Bennett v. Murphy

166 F. Supp. 3d 128 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Feb 26, 2016

“Qualifying for disability retirement, however, is no small task” because “military regulations establish a complex web of procedures for obtaining disability benefits after leaving active service.” Fulbright v. … It does not, in itself, establish physical unfitness for Army purposes. The [VA] rating decision provided by the applicant does not establish entitlement to medical retirement or disability separation from the Army.

Bailen v. Dietrick

12 F. Supp. 602 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Oct 22, 1935

Bancokentucky Co., supra, were cases where defrauded stockholders were allowed to qualify as petitioning creditors in bankruptcy proceedings, but in both cases the court reserved the question whether the petitioner was entitled … In all of the other cases, above cited, the stockholder was unable to establish his right to rescind after insolvency.

Ferring Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Braintree Laboratories, Inc.

168 F. Supp. 3d 355 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Feb 29, 2016

In light of Ferring’s representation on February 8, 2016 that it 1) already performed a search of the keywords listed in paragraphs 27 and 28 of Alissa Digman’s declaration, without using the qualifiers in the parentheticals … This Court concludes that her ruling was not clearly erroneous or contrary to law.

Great American Life Insurance v. Murphy

647 F. Supp. 119 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Nov 12, 1986

The policy thus does not clearly restrict one single sum transfer to a single transfer of funds nor clearly allow it. … Defendant disagrees that extrinsic evidence establishes plaintiff’s purported purposes of the variable commission rate as factually true.

Amirault v. City of Malden

241 F. Supp. 3d 288 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Mar 20, 2017

Finally, Molis contends that even if Amirault has alleged a violation of his constitutional rights, his claims should be dismissed on the grounds of qualified immunity. … immunity.

Rodrigues v. EG Systems, Inc.

639 F. Supp. 2d 131 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jul 23, 2009

In order to establish the prima facie case under Section 510, a plaintiff must show that he (1) is entitled to ERISA’s protection, (2) was qualified for the position, and (3) was discharged under circumstances that give rise … Rodrigues does not qualify as a participant in the plan under these provisions.

Ryan v. Fallon Community Health Plan, Inc.

921 F. Supp. 34 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Apr 4, 1996

The Supreme Court has established that a law “relates to” an employee benefit plan “if it has a connection with or reference to such a plan.” Ingersoll-Rand Co. v. … Plaintiffs two common law claims for breach of contract clearly are not “saved” from ERISA preemption under this two-part *38 test.

Zades v. Lowe's Home Centers, Inc.

446 F. Supp. 2d 29 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Sep 6, 2006

At the first stage, the burden is on Plaintiff to establish a prima facie case of discrimination. … To establish a prima facie case of disability under the ADA and Chapter 151B, 13 Plaintiff must show that she: (1) had a disability as defined by the statutes; (2) was otherwise qualified to perform the essential functions

Burnham v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts

District Court, D. Massachusetts · Mar 12, 2018

Bringing this action in federal court implicates the Commonwealth’s sovereign immunity under the Eleventh Amendment. … In order to establish that he is a qualified individual with a disability, Burnham must establish that he: suffers from a physical or mental impairment that affects

Sherwood Forest Neighbors Association, Inc. v. Town of Becket

466 F. Supp. 2d 399 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Dec 18, 2006

At the hearing, the court emphasized, as diplomatically but also as clearly as possi *401 ble, that Plaintiffs’ complaint was in flat violation of Fed.R.Civ.P. 8 — a prolix, wandering, impenetrable mess. … Specific conditions were established by the court for the pleading in the scheduling order.

Acadia Healthcare Company, Inc. v. City of Fitchburg

District Court, D. Massachusetts · Sep 30, 2025

In reading Title II, the First Circuit has said that to state an actionable reasonable accommodation claim, a plaintiff must establish “(1) that he is a qualified individual with a disability; (2) that he was either excluded … Plaintiffs’ attempt to establish municipal custom fares no better.

DeNadai v. Preferred Capital Markets, Inc.

272 B.R. 21 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Nov 13, 2001

Under the Plan, the Company could issue the following awards: stock awards, stock options (either incentive stock options (“ISOs”) qualifying for special tax treatment under I.R.C. § 422, or non-qualified stock options), … Both cases, applying Massachusetts law, considered to what extent the doctrine established in Fortune v.

Clauson v. Prudential Insurance Co. of America

195 F. Supp. 72 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · May 16, 1961

Hence it is required that the matter of es-toppel, i.e., the facts out of which it arises, be clearly established in evidence; and then the facts so established must present these two requisites, viz.: 1. … Defendant relies heavily on Paragraph 4(b) (ii) as qualifying the language used in Paragraph 4(a).

Society of the Holy Transfiguration Monastery, Inc. v. Gregory

754 F. Supp. 2d 219 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Dec 3, 2010

Copying To establish copyright infringement, the Monastery must also show “copying of constituent elements of the work [by the defendant] that are original.” See Lotus Dev. … Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) Safe Harbor Defense In his opposition to the Monastery’s motion for summary judgment, the Archbishop raises a matinal affirmative defense: he argues that he is immune from liability

McDonald v. Commonwealth Gas Co.

534 F. Supp. 232 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jan 26, 1982

A complainant has the burden of establishing a prima facie case. … In order to satisfy this burden he must show that (1) he belongs to a racial minority; (2) he applied and was qualified for a job the employer was trying to fill; (3) though qualified, he was rejected; and, (4) the employer

Planned Parenthood League of Mass. v. Bellotti

608 F. Supp. 800 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Feb 11, 1985

Clearly, Massachusetts has a significant interest in the integrity of its superior court system. … Standing Order 12-80 (effective September 3, 1980) established uniform procedures for the processing of minors’ abortion petitions.

MacNeill Engineering Co., Inc. v. Trisport, Ltd.

59 F. Supp. 2d 199 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jul 28, 1999

Trisport argues that this Court should deny MacNeill’s motion for leave to amend its claim of contributory infringement as futile because such scanty pleading “fails to allege facts which, if proven, would establish that … Additionally, the Court would have to consider whether Trisport's alleged disclosure, apparently made solely in the context of litigation, is immunized from section 99Q liability under some .form of litigation privilege.

Creative Environments, Inc. v. Estabrook

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

The municipal officials, of course, are entitled to a qualified immunity which is not enjoyed by the municipality itself. Owen v. City of Independence, -U.S.-, 100 S.Ct. 1398 , 63 L.Ed.2d 673 (1980). … Barber to the deprivation of rights, privileges or immunities secured by the Constitution and Laws of the United States.

United States v. Barton

282 F. Supp. 785 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · May 23, 1967

This seizure was too remote from the immediate presence of the arrested defendant to qualify as incident to an arrest. … It has been clearly established that automobiles are protected from unreasonable searches. Weller v. Russell, 1963, 3 Cir., 321 F.2d 848, 854 . 2 .