Case law

Pronghorn, Inc. v. Licensing Board

13 Mass. App. Ct. 70 · Massachusetts Appeals Court · Jan 25, 1982

No charges were made of violations by the licensees, although it was suggested at the July 30 hearing (see note 4, supra) that there was overcrowding in certain licensed establishments during the early morning hours. … The plaintiffs make an additional argument, not developed particularly clearly, that the discretion given local licensing authorities by G.

Charing Cross Corp. v. Comfed Mortgage Co.

25 Mass. App. Ct. 924 · Massachusetts Appeals Court · Dec 21, 1987

First, the plaintiff argues that the agreement fails to specify clearly the extent to which the defendant was obligated to furnish 90% financing to all qualified purchasers. … There is nothing to establish that Allardice (who is described simply *928 as an employee of the defendant) had authority to bind the defendant.

Marhefka v. Zoning Board of Appeals of Sutton

79 Mass. App. Ct. 515 · Massachusetts Appeals Court · May 13, 2011

Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Newburyport, 421 Mass. 719, 720, 722 (1996) (appellate court *518 will not set aside judge’s findings, after contested evidentiary hearing, about standing unless “clearly erroneous”). … These sketches were compiled from exhibits in the summary judgment record, and we took judicial notice of the online database of the assessors for the town, which established the living area for *517 the defendants’ home.

Kirkwood v. Board of Appeals of Rockport

17 Mass. App. Ct. 423 · Massachusetts Appeals Court · Jan 24, 1984

Wrightson claims, however, that his site qualifies under the by-law for the possible construction of two single family houses 8 but that he is precluded from subdividing the property, and hence gaining maximum benefit from … Nor will the deprivation of a potential economic advantage to a landowner qualify as substantial hardship. Shacka v. Board of Appeals of Chelmsford , 341 Mass, at 594-595. Bruzzese v.

Maurice Callahan & Sons, Inc. v. Board of Appeals

30 Mass. App. Ct. 36 · Massachusetts Appeals Court · Jan 30, 1991

The plaintiff, long established in the outdoor advertising business, maintained the billboards on a parcel of land which once enjoyed 100 feet of highway frontage. … As of the time they were recorded, this court had held that the 1977 by-law amendment prohibiting “off-premises” billboards “clearly terminated” whatever protection the plaintiffs billboards enjoyed as nonconforming uses.

Rodrigues v. Public Employee Retirement Administration Commission

Massachusetts Appeals Court · Sep 29, 2020

With respect to count one, PERAC invoked a sovereign immunity defense -- it argued that the claim was not a proper claim for a declaratory judgment, because it sought a declaration regarding "individual, personal rights … We held that McLaughlin could not make out such a claim as a matter of law, because the panel's determination established conclusively that he was not qualified for his former position. Id. at 69-70.

Karim Suwwan De Felipe v. Leila El-Youssef Suwwan

Massachusetts Appeals Court · Oct 14, 2025

Fidelity allows only a small group of highly valued employees to purchase NVCs, and they must qualify as accredited investors under Security and Exchange Commission regulations. … In the end, "[v]aluation of a business interest is a question of fact," Adams, 459 Mass. at 380 , and after reviewing the extensive trial record, we do not consider the judge's finding to be clearly erroneous, see id. 2.

Gauthier v. Director of the Office of Medicaid

80 Mass. App. Ct. 777 · Massachusetts Appeals Court · Nov 10, 2011

Furthermore, receipts from the construction of the in-law apartment established the fair market value of the construction costs. … Regardless, whatever evidence *787 that hearing officer found sufficiently convincing to establish a sole intent other than to qualify for benefits, the hearing officer in this case drew a different conclusion from the testimony

Ranieri v. Glacken

93 Mass. App. Ct. 1119 · Massachusetts Appeals Court · Jul 13, 2018

Generally, expert testimony is required to establish that an attorney's conduct fell below the standard of care. See Pongonis v. Saab , 396 Mass. 1005 , 1005 (1985). … As a result, we cannot say that the second judge's finding that the agreement constituted one valid contract enforceable against Paulsen was clearly erroneous. See Balles v.

Commonwealth v. Cruz

90 Mass. App. Ct. 60 · Massachusetts Appeals Court · Aug 18, 2016

L. c. 94C, § 32J, the Commonwealth is required to produce sufficient evidence to establish that the school is one of the types enumerated in the statute." Commonwealth v. Gonzales, 33 Mass. App. … The motion judge's finding that the defendant presented no evidence to support his claim was not clearly erroneous, and therefore, the defendant was not deprived of a substantial ground of defense.

Sarvis v. Boston Safe Deposit & Trust Co.

47 Mass. App. Ct. 86 · Massachusetts Appeals Court · Jun 9, 1999

L. c. 258 abrogated governmental tort immunity). See also G. L. c. 151B, §§ 1(1), 1(5), and 4. … Pape, 365 U.S. 167 (1961), which conferred complete immunity upon municipalities under § 1983.

Johnstone

72 Mass. App. Ct. 123 · Massachusetts Appeals Court · Jun 25, 2008

his previous thinking “very clearly” as a cognitive distortion involving issues of “jealousy and power and control and entitlement.” … L. c. 123 A, § 9, requires that one of the qualified examiners opine that a petitioner is currently sexually dangerous in order for the Commonwealth to establish a prima facie case.

Commonwealth v. Manning

41 Mass. App. Ct. 696 · Massachusetts Appeals Court · Nov 22, 1996

To qualify as “distinctive” for Sixth Amendment purposes, a group must: 1) be defined and limited by some clearly identifiable factor; 2) have a common thread or basic similarity in attitude, ideas, or experience running … Belief systems do not excuse acts that have lawfully been established to be criminal. Commonwealth v. Nis-senbaum, 404 Mass. 575, 583 (1989).

Chandler v. Chang

92 Mass. App. Ct. 1108 · Massachusetts Appeals Court · Oct 13, 2017

will prevail before a tribunal if he (1) shows "that the defendant is a provider of health care as defined in § 60(B)"; (2) demonstrates "that the health care provider did not conform to good medical practice"; and (3) establishes … In addition, "[t]he line between impermissible speculation and permissible inference is not a clearly marked, bright line.

RACHEL STEPHANO v. MORRIS HEALTHCARE LLC, & Another.

Massachusetts Appeals Court · Jun 28, 2024

Ct. 231, 235 (1982) (although summary judgment record may have supplied "at best a toehold to establish" liability, that "is enough to survive a motion for summary judgment"). … The application of the COVID-19 immunity act.

Mancini v. Spagtacular, LLC

Massachusetts Appeals Court · Aug 29, 2019

Massachusetts jurisprudence does not establish a per se rule that mowing and yard maintenance can never be adequate to establish adverse possession. See Brandao, 80 Mass. App. … Instead, the disputed areas were clearly delineated as outside the wooded and allegedly wild area.

Commonwealth v. Gross

64 Mass. App. Ct. 829 · Massachusetts Appeals Court · Oct 25, 2005

That analysis establishes that, even had the Commonwealth’s § 14(a) trial motion been timely filed, the additional sixty days allowed under § 14(a) for commencement of trial (after the trial motion filing) was, in effect, … examiner reports filed on October 4, 2002, there was virtually no question but that the Commonwealth possessed psychiatric opinions clearly and unequivocally concluding that the defendant was sexually dangerous within the

Biewald v. Seven Ten Storage Software, Inc.

113 N.E.3d 881 · Massachusetts Appeals Court · Oct 31, 2018

Babcock Power Inc., 476 Mass. 565, 571 (2017).4 The rules of interpretation are well established. … Clearly, there were two conditions precedent, a "Sale" and "Consideration."

Vita v. Berman, DeValerio & Pease, LLP

81 Mass. App. Ct. 748 · Massachusetts Appeals Court · May 17, 2012

Block further testi *752 fled that Hillger’s removal was a “strategic decision” and not based on lack of standing or his failure to qualify as a plaintiff. … Here, BDP claims there was insufficient evidence to establish that the parties had an agreement as to the payment of a ten percent referral fee for the PSC litigation.

Spaniol's Case

81 Mass. App. Ct. 437 · Massachusetts Appeals Court · Mar 16, 2012

All four conditions must be met in order to qualify for the reduction. We need look no further than the first condition in this case. … Prompt payment alone, however, without satisfying the other requirements of the statute, is not enough to qualify for the § 13A(10) reduction. Because AIM did not establish that it met all the requirements of G.