Case law

Briggs v. A Light Boat

89 Mass. 287 · Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · Oct 15, 1863

On the contrary, there are several stipulations which clearly show a different intention. … Upon careful consideration of this ground of defence to the petitioners’ claim, we have been unable to discover any valid reason for the immunity which is set up in favor of the government.

Commonwealth v. Brown

456 Mass. 708 · Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · May 11, 2010

Just as the drug statutes do not operate as a blanket prohibition against prescribing controlled substances, neither does the registration scheme immunize registered physicians from prosecution for unlawful dispensing or … Where the Federal regulation cannot establish a criminal prohibition, § 19 clearly does.

Bougas v. Chief of Police of Lexington

371 Mass. 59 · Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · Sep 13, 1976

IV 1974), amending 5 U.S.C. § 552 (b) (7) (1970), establishing exemptions. … While the judge ruled without qualification that “the materials and data sought from [the police chief] qualify for exemption under G.

Bacon v. Federal Kemper Life Assurance Co.

400 Mass. 850 · Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · Sep 14, 1987

Jones also stated that the beneficiary of a policy would not qualify as a disinterested witness. 2 Jones’s successor said that she eliminated Kemper’s requirement of a disinterested witness, although there was no evidence … Instead of adhering to well-established principles of review, the court makes the factual determination that Kemper acted with reasonable care.

Rugg v. Town Clerk of Arlington

364 Mass. 264 · Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · Nov 7, 1973

Statute 1952, c. 503, “An Act establishing a town manager form of government for the town of Arlington,” § 9, as amended by St. 1956, c. 634, § 2, provides in part: “Multiple Officers. — A member of the board of selectmen … He seasonably filed nomination papers and was otherwise duly qualified to run for the office of selectman.

Commonwealth v. Harwood

432 Mass. 290 · Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · Aug 16, 2000

immunized witness before the grand jury. … Moreover, any such “admission” before the grand jury was made after Mikkelsen obtained immunity from prosecution; proof by analysis of the original February 5 letter that Mikkelsen’s immunized testimony was suspect or perjured

Coit v. Howd

67 Mass. 547 · Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · Sep 15, 1854

It was but hearsay evidence, and as such inadmissible, unless it can be clearly shown to be within some of the well known exceptions to the rule which excludes that species of testimony. … They were not declarations contemporaneous with the thing done and qualifying and giving character to it. They were only a narrative of what had been done.

Richardson v. Boston Chemical Laboratory

50 Mass. 42 · Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · Mar 15, 1845

Such seems to be the rule established by numerous authorities, in this Commonwealth and elsewhere. Thayer v. Brackett, 12 Mass. 450 Loring v. Cooke, 3 Pick. 48 . Wood v. Hitchcock, 20 Wend. 47 . Brooklyn Bank v. … This condition the plaintiff could not legally annex to the tender of the money, and this would clearly render that tender of no effect. As to the other tenders the court express no opinion.

Boston Water Power Co. v. Boston & Worcester Railroad

33 Mass. 512 · Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · Mar 15, 1835

materials for constructing it, and although in point of fact, in assessing damages for the owner in such case, the whole value of the land is usually given, deducting nothing for the general right of ownership, yet it is clearly … as these acts confer, and therefore if in summing them up, they should state them in terms which, if they stood alone, might be deemed the averment of a right of property or of possession, still this statement is to be qualified

Afienko v. Harvard Club of Boston

365 Mass. 320 · Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · May 20, 1974

L. c. 152, § 18, and under § 15 of that chapter the plaintiff would be entitled to bring a common law action for personal injuries. 3 *325 Our cases have clearly established that it is ordinarily a question of fact whether … The first part of the answer was clearly responsive, and the court was not required to allow such a motion unless no part of the answer was responsive.

Moore v. Cataldo

356 Mass. 325 · Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · Jul 1, 1969

In contrast, the notice here clearly indicated that the proposed building would be used as a nursing home. 2. … The plaintiffs suggest that the permit was invalid because neither the decision of the board nor the judge established under G.

Commonwealth v. Rosenberg

379 Mass. 334 · Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · Dec 10, 1979

Just as the Supreme Court reasoned that requiring knowledge of the legal status of the material sold would immunize all those who conscientiously avoid “brush[ing] up on the law,” Hamling v. … The magazine was not sold from a place of business “clearly labelled” as an “adult book” store, People v. Speer, 52 Ill. App. 3d 203, 213 (1977), or from a store that charged admission, People v. Rode, 57 Ill.

Sarna v. American Bosch Magneto Corp.

290 Mass. 340 · Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · Apr 1, 1935

Except with reference to the single act of leaving refuse as filling in the place designated, she had conferred upon the defendant none of the privileges or immunities of ownership. … If this was not expressly stated as to the father’s case, it was clearly implied from what was said. As a ruling of law it was at least sufficiently favorable to the defendant.

Clark v. Inhabitants of Great Barrington

28 Mass. 260 · Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · Sep 19, 1831

But school districts are not required and have no power to establish or maintain schools. … When this committee acts on this subject officially, it necessarily acts as the agent of the town and the town is clearly bound by such acts.

President of the Lechmere Bank v. Boynton

65 Mass. 369 · Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · Oct 15, 1853

the charter, but for the facts tending to establish a superior claim on the part of the other party. … consideration and reciprocity, would give them no power to act in the organization, or otherwise as associates and members of such corporation, until received as associates by the corporation when organized, after being qualified

Commonwealth v. Swafford

441 Mass. 329 · Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · Mar 30, 2004

The gang affiliation evidence falls within the established acceptable use: the Commonwealth used the testimony to establish the defendants’ retributive motive and joint venture. … In addition to arguing that the gang affiliation evidence was prejudicial, Swafford maintains that the Commonwealth failed to establish an adequate foundation for the testimony, and that the judge improperly qualified the

Productora E Importadora De Papel v. Fleming

376 Mass. 826 · Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · Dec 15, 1978

If the questions were aimed at establishing a foundation for admissibility as a trade publication under G. L. c. 233, § 79B, there was no need for counsel first to qualify Whittemore or Saltus as an expert on prices. … In any event the questions were clearly material to each witness’s qualifications.

Massachusetts Electric Co. v. Department of Public Utilities

419 Mass. 239 · Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · Dec 22, 1994

The department then established values for certain externalities associated with combustion-based generating plants. … It is not clearly established, however, that PURPA bars an electric utility from paying more than its avoided cost to a qualified facility providing power to the utility.

Commonwealth v. Nee

458 Mass. 174 · Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · Oct 27, 2010

Both also testified pursuant to grants of immunity at Kerns’s trial, which took place sixteen months before the trial of the defendant. See Commonwealth v. … Burke, 392 Mass. 688, 690 (1984) (where Legislature does not define term, “we presume that its intent is to incorporate the common-law definition of that term, ‘unless the intent to alter it is clearly expressed’ ”). 19 Commonwealth

Milligan v. Board of Registration in Pharmacy

348 Mass. 491 · Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · Feb 8, 1965

The effect of the board’s denial of the registration permits in the two cases before us is clearly to preclude the applicants, although the individuals are qualified pharmacists, from the pursuit of a lawful vocation at places … Two of these decisions involved applications by banks to establish branch offices. See Natick, Trust Co. v. Board of Bank Incorporation, 337 Mass. 615, 616-617 ; City Bank S Trust Co. v.