Case law

United States v. Smith

32 F.2d 901 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · May 22, 1929

S. v. Smith (D. C.) 285 F. 751 . The faets are settled by stipulation of the parties; and the question is which party is entitled to judgment. … When the case was heard on demurrer, it was assumed that the War Industries Board had power to make valid regulations concerning the wool business. Since then it has been decided in U. S. v. McFarland, 15 F.(2d) 823 (C.

Community Brotherhood of Lynn, Inc. v. Lynn Redevelopment Authority

523 F. Supp. 779 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Aug 7, 1981

Regents of University of California v. Bakke, 438 U.S. *781 265, 98 S.Ct. 2733 , 57 L.Ed.2d 750 (1978); Allen v. Board of Elections, 393 U.S. 544 , 89 S.Ct. 817 , 22 L.Ed.2d 1 (1969). … In N.A.A.C.P. v.

Baystate Technologies, Inc. v. Bowers

81 F. Supp. 2d 152 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Dec 17, 1999

Brown, 939 F.2d 1558, 1561-62 (Fed.Cir.1991), it does not follow that limitations from the specification should be read into the claims. Sjolund v. Musland, 847 F.2d 1573, 1581 (Fed.Cir.1988). … Unique Concepts, Inc. v. Brown, 939 F.2d 1558, 1561-62 (Fed.Cir.1991).

Nolan v. Scafati

306 F. Supp. 1 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Dec 2, 1969

Cooper v. Pate, 378 U.S. 546 , 84 S.Ct. 1733 , 12 L.Ed.2d 1030 ; Brown v. Brown, 368 F.2d 992, 993 , 9th Cir.; Howard v. Smyth, 365 F.2d 428 , 4th Cir. … As Hannah v.

Hunneman Real Estate Corp. v. Eastern Middlesex Ass'n of Realtors, Inc.

860 F. Supp. 906 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jul 21, 1994

Franchise Tax Board v. Laborers Vacation Trust, 463 U.S. 1, 9 , 103 S.Ct. 2841, 2846 , 77 L.Ed.2d 420 (1983). 3 The Supreme Court later advised that “this statement must be read with caution ...” … Oliver v. Trunkline Gas Co., 796 F.2d 86, 88 (5th Cir.1986), quoting Franchise Tax Board, 463 U.S. at 8-9 , 103 S.Ct. at 2846 , in turn quoting American Well Works Co. v.

Metcalf v. Bay Ferries Ltd.

937 F. Supp. 2d 147 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Mar 25, 2013

Metcalf is referring the specific interval between receiving the terms and conditions and boarding The CAT, or the interval between arriving at Defendant's boarding facility and driving onto The CAT. . … This could only be accomplished before boarding the ferry and therefore the legally significant period of time in this case is the interval between the Plaintiffs receiving the full terms and boarding The CAT. .

Massachusetts State Carpenters Annuity Fund v. Cardarelli Construction Co.

106 F.R.D. 250 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jun 3, 1985

The Board then determines whether the union has met its burden, and the Board’s decision may be reviewed by the Court of Appeals. … But in those eases, there is no indication that discovery under the Federal Rules is in any way limited by Board practice. In fact, there is a suggestion to the contrary. In the case of Local Union No. 59, Etc. v.

Garcia-Tatupu v. Bert Bell/Peter Rozelle NFL Player Retirement Plan

249 F. Supp. 3d 570 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Apr 18, 2017

In Samaroo v. … The Retirement Board here does not fully explain the reasoning behind its decision, but it appears the Board was taking the Samaroo approach to the Plaintiffs order.

Bentubo v. Boston & M. R. R.

66 F. Supp. 910 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jun 25, 1946

On August 24, 1944, the respondent sent the following letter to Local Board No. 45: “Gentlemen: “This is to advise that William Bentubo, O/N 3546-V, has resigned his job as of this date to enter military service, thus severing … See Hayes v. Boston & Maine Railroad, 66 F.Supp. 371 . Conclusions of Law.

In re E. C. Fisher Corp.

229 F. 316 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · May 18, 1915

Rep. 63, 70, it was the duty of the state board to ascertain and fix the amount of the franchise tax in the cases of corporations which failed to make returns, and the amount fixed by the board became due and payable. … The principle on which New Jersey v. Anderson was decided seems to cover the case at bar.

In re Boston & Maine Corp.

46 B.R. 974 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Oct 14, 1984

Pilkington v. Bevilacqua, 632 F.2d 922, 925 (1st Cir.1980). … Article V will be adopted with the understanding that by such adoption the provisions of Decision T-112 will be abrogated. 4.

Remar v. Clayton Securities Corporation

81 F. Supp. 1014 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jan 7, 1949

Section 7(a) and (b) of the Securities and Exchange Act, 48 Stat. 886 , 887, 15 U.S.C.A. § 78g(a) and (b) gave to the Federal Reserve Board — now the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve' System, see § 203(a) of Act … Baird v. Franklin, 2 Cir., 141 F.2d 238 ; Goldstein v. Groesbeck, 2 Cir., 142 F.2d 422 , 154 A.L.R. 1285 ; Downing v. Howard, 3 Cir., 162 F.2d 654, 658 ; Kardon v.

New York Airlines, Inc. v. Dukes County

623 F. Supp. 1435 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Dec 4, 1985

Parker v. Brown, 317 U.S. 341 , 63 S.Ct. 307 , 87 L.Ed. 315 (1943). … State of California, State Water Resources Board, 694 F.2d 1171 (9th Cir.1982) (conditions imposed by state board on federal project not prempted by supremacy clause). Handsome v.

United States v. Small

297 F. Supp. 582 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Mar 18, 1969

When he opened locker 725, Fortune saw two brown paper bags and a blue and white box. … Abel v.

International Ass'n of Heat & Frost Insulators & Asbestos Workers, Local Union No. 6 v. Thermo-Guard Corp.

880 F. Supp. 42 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Feb 24, 1995

Painters Local No. 257 v. … decided by the Trade Board.”

Boston Mutual Life Insurance v. Insurance Agents' International Union

161 F. Supp. 222 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Apr 23, 1958

Most of the governing principles of law were recently reviewed in Local No. 149 v. General Electric Co., 1 Cir., 250 F.2d 922 and New Bedford Defense Products Division v. Local No. 1113, D.C.D.Mass., 160 F.Supp. 103 . … Lowry v. Commissioner of Agriculture, *226 302 Mass. 111 , 18 N.E.2d 548 .

In re E. T. Russell Co.

291 F. 809 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jun 29, 1923

Tiffany v. … Commerce Trust Co. v.

Chin Ten Teung v. Ward

30 F. Supp. 670 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Nov 15, 1939

This petition for a writ of habeas corpus brings in question an excluding decision of a majority of a Board of Special Inquiry, affirmed on appeal. … The decision is based upon a finding that the applicant was born prior to August, 1923, when the father first entered the United States and, therefore, inadmissible in view of Weedin, Com’r v.

Law v. United States

18 F. Supp. 42 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jan 27, 1937

An immigration inspector boarded the vessel on April 9 and gave to the chief officer a notice to detain on board and deport nine of the crew who were Chinese. … Lloyd Sabaudo Societa v. Elting, 287 U.S. 329, 335 , 53 S.Ct. 167, 170 , 77 L.Ed. 341 ; Lancashire Shipping Co. v. Elting (C.C.A.) 70 F.(2d) 699, 701 .

Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. United States

788 F. Supp. 1267 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Apr 6, 1992

This Court cannot, however, simply ignore the findings of the Appeals Board. Kulkin v. … See Moorehead v. Hunter, 198 F.2d 52, 53-54 (10th Cir.1952); United States v.