Case law

Western Electric Co. v. Director of the Division of Employment Security

340 Mass. 190 · Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · Jan 4, 1960

Moen v. Director of the Div. of Employment Security, 324 Mass. 246 . … In opposing the conclusion reached by the board of review Western relies heavily on Moen v. Director of the Div. of Employment Security, 324 Mass. 246 .

Town of Holden v. Holden Suburban Supply Co.

343 Mass. 187 · Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · Nov 17, 1961

This is a suit in equity by the town of Holden, which by amendment has been substituted as plaintiff for the town’s board of health (Board of Health of Wareham v. … See Cochis v. Board of Health of Canton, 332 Mass. 721, 723 .

Korobchuk's Case

280 Mass. 412 · Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · Oct 25, 1932

Churchill v. Churchill, 239 Mass. 443, 446 . Williamson v. Williamson, 246 Mass. 270, 274 . Burgess v. Burgess, 256 Mass. 99 . … That amount was from time to time subject to revision by the board.

Commonwealth v. Nettis

418 Mass. 715 · Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · Oct 6, 1994

Our decision in Brown , however, is not instructive in the present case because the jury never unanimously affirmed the verdict in public. Commonwealth v. Brown, supra at 28 . … United States v. Shepherd, 576 F.2d 719, 724 (7th Cir.), cert, denied, 439 U.S. 852 (1978). See Audette v.

Assessors of Boston v. Boston Pilots' Relief Society

311 Mass. 232 · Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · Mar 31, 1942

upon the facts found by the board. … Fellows v. Miner, 119 Mass. 541 . Minns v. Billings, 183 Mass. 126 .

Elmore v. Symonds

183 Mass. 321 · Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · May 21, 1903

Glass v. Hulbert, 102 Mass. 24, 28 . Brown v. Brown, 6 Stew. 650 , 659. Ex parte Hall, 10 Ch. D. 615. … Wright v. Ellison, 1 Wall. 16 . Walker v. Brown, 165 U. S. 654 .

Town of Milton v. Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority

356 Mass. 467 · Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · Dec 4, 1969

Manchester v. Selectmen of Nantucket, 335 Mass. 156, 158-159 . See Rousseau v. Building Inspector of Framingham, 349 Mass. 31, 37 . … all interested and participating board members.

FIN. COMM. OF FALMOUTH v. Falmouth Bd. of Pub. Welfare

345 Mass. 579 · Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · Mar 8, 1963

All questions argued are closely related to the board’s refusal to give to the finance committee access to all the board’s records in accordance with the vote (and appropriation) of the town. See Wilson v. … Hurley v. Board of Pub.

Sharon v. Director of the Division of Employment Security

390 Mass. 376 · Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · Nov 9, 1983

Application of law to fact is a function specifically committed to the board. Garfield v. Director of the Div. of Employment Sec., 377 Mass. 94, 96 (1979). … Garfield v. Director of the Div. of Employment Sec., supra at 97.

Deal v. Commissioner of Correction

475 Mass. 307 · Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · Aug 25, 2016

Commonwealth v. Parent, 465 Mass. 395, 409 (2013). … See Schulman v.

Kennedy v. City of Holyoke

312 Mass. 248 · Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · Oct 27, 1942

The present c. 31, § 43, differs from the statute in force when the cases of Tucker v. Boston, 223 Mass. 478 , Thomas v. Municipal Council of Lowell, 227 Mass. 116 , and Ellis v. … See Chartrand v. Chartrand, 295 Mass. 293, 297 .

Connolly v. City of Waltham

156 Mass. 368 · Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · May 9, 1892

See Buzzell v. Laconia Manuf. Co. 48 Maine, 113. Griffiths v. London & St. Katharine Docks Co. 13 Q. B. D. 259. … Weblin v. Ballard, 17 Q. B. D. 122, 125.

Flynn v. City of Cambridge

383 Mass. 152 · Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · Mar 12, 1981

(board). … We held that the Brookline rent control board was without authority to enact such regulations, because the regulations contradicted the policy of c. 842 to encourage home ownership. Zussman v.

Schulte v. Director of the Division of Employment Security

376 Mass. 107 · Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · Jul 26, 1978

The plaintiff is entitled to have a new ruling by the board on the question of his availability which takes into account the correct Sabbath observance. See generally Sherbert v. … Prior to affirming the board’s decision, the District Court judge had dismissed the plaintiffs appeal on procedural grounds. We reversed the dismissal. Schulte v.

Commonwealth v. Noffke

376 Mass. 127 · Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · Aug 1, 1978

In Hudgens v. … V 1975).

Springfield Inst. for Sav. v. WORCESTER FED. S & L

329 Mass. 184 · Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · Jul 3, 1952

Beyond question, the home loan board has been validly and generally empowered by the home owners' loan act to make rules for the organization and regulation of savings and loan associations. Fahey v. … While not self authorizing, Addison v.

Rourke v. Rothman

448 Mass. 190 · Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · Jan 11, 2007

See Tsagronis v. Board of Appeals of Wareham, 415 Mass. 329, 330 (1993). The second sentence of G. … See Ferzoco v. Board of Appeals of Falmouth, 29 Mass. App. Ct. 986, 987 (1990).

Berthiaume's Case

328 Mass. 186 · Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · Dec 5, 1951

It was on this slender basis that the board found that the injury occurred in July of 1942. … There was no error of law in the acceptance by the board of the opinion of Dr. Carmody. Marlow v. Dike, 269 Mass. 38, 40 . Dug-gan’s Case, 315 Mass. 355, 358 . Josi’s Case, 324 Mass. 415, 417-419 . The statute, G. L.

Beacon Hill Civic Ass'n v. Ristorante Toscano, Inc.

422 Mass. 318 · Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · Mar 25, 1996

On Februaiy 23, 1994, the ABCC formally approved the board’s decision. As to the 1984 contract, the ABCC agreed with the board that it was illegal. … Sections 12 and 67 provide that such licenses must be approved by both the local licensing authorities (here, the board) and the ABCC. Selectmen of Barnstable v.

Posner v. Seder

184 Mass. 331 · Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · Oct 23, 1903

Brown v. Woodbury, 183 Mass. 279 . In this case the. plaintiff has sued upon a quantum meruit for the value of only a part of the services, namely, for those rendered in the extra hours named in the contract. … Brown v. Woodbury, ubi supra. Exceptions sustained.