Case law

Commonwealth v. Klusman

46 Mass. App. Ct. 919 · Massachusetts Appeals Court · Mar 25, 1999

It is by now well established that this “strict liability” does not constitute a denial of due process. Commonwealth v. Alvarez, 413 Mass. 224, 228-230 (1992). … The same principle applies to the location of a qualifying school.

Children's Health Rights of Massachusetts, Inc. v. Belmont Public School District

Massachusetts Appeals Court · Jun 23, 2023

Public Health, Immunization. Constitutional Law, Standing. Practice, Civil, Standing, Preliminary injunction. Declaratory Relief. … These allegations establish that the plaintiff's interest is within the area of concern of the policy at issue.

JOHN J. SULLIVAN v. SUPERINTENDENT, MASSACHUSETTS CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION, SHIRLEY, & others.

101 Mass. App. Ct. 766 · Massachusetts Appeals Court · Sep 27, 2022

[Note 9] The prison does not argue, for the purposes of its motion to dismiss, that Deputy Superintendent Kelly is entitled to qualified immunity as a matter of law. Cf. Rosado v. Commissioner of Correction, 91 Mass. … Ct. 547 , 554 n.8 (2017) (not reaching question of qualified immunity for defamation claim against prison officials by inmate).

Benson v. Massachusetts General Hospital

49 Mass. App. Ct. 530 · Massachusetts Appeals Court · Jun 30, 2000

specialty, by the average qualified physician practicing that specialty.” … The record does reflect his imperfect recollection of events, as in his deposition denial that he was ever x-rayed before being operated on (a fact clearly established by hospital records) and his inconsistent responses to

Caldwell v. Caldwell

17 Mass. App. Ct. 1032 · Massachusetts Appeals Court · Mar 22, 1984

For these reasons we conclude that the finding as to value is clearly erroneous. See Mass.R.Dom.Rel.P. 52(a) (1975). … The wife’s feeble attempt to offer such testimony failed when her expert witness was not qualified despite the judge’s indulgence.

Breslin v. School Committee of Quincy

20 Mass. App. Ct. 74 · Massachusetts Appeals Court · May 17, 1985

Thereafter the school committee established a screening committee to interview and recommend candidates. … The judge’s findings concerning the good faith and genuine nature of the selection process, the plaintiffs say, are, therefore, clearly erroneous.

Bleicken v. Stark

61 Mass. App. Ct. 619 · Massachusetts Appeals Court · Aug 17, 2004

On appeal, Stark argues that, as matter of law, she could not convert goods of which she had no knowledge and that the judge’s findings on the issue of dam *620 ages were clearly erroneous. 1 Notwithstanding the fact that … to testify as to value is a preliminary question of fact for the trial judge and that finding will not be disturbed on appeal ‘unless upon the evidence it [is] [clearly] erroneous as matter of law.’ ” Selby Assocs. v.

BNE Massachusetts Corp. v. Sims

32 Mass. App. Ct. 190 · Massachusetts Appeals Court · Mar 2, 1992

On the judge’s subsidiary finding, not clearly erroneous, the trade price of $88 must be excluded from his calculation of fair value. See Sarrouf v. … Assuming the plaintiff’s statements are an accurate description of the transaction — an arm’s-length merger agreement which was the product of a “controlled auction” among six qualified bidders and approved by the officers

Ferrari v. Toto

9 Mass. App. Ct. 483 · Massachusetts Appeals Court · Mar 31, 1980

The statutory scheme which established the Fund seeks to avoid this sort of movement of funds among insurers. … In order to qualify as a “covered claim” under the statute, a claim must be unpaid. G. L. c. 175D, § 1(2). See Florida Ins. Guar. Assn. v. Dolan, 355 So.2d 141, 142 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1978).

Williams v. B & K Medical Systems, Inc.

49 Mass. App. Ct. 563 · Massachusetts Appeals Court · Jul 7, 2000

The judge’s rejection of the defendants’ accord and satisfaction defense was not clearly erroneous. … “As in other instances where justification is required, the burden of proof [is] upon the defendant to establish the existence of [privilege].” Owen v. Williams, 322 Mass. 356, 360 (1948); United Truck Leasing Corp. v.

Young v. St. Hilaire

92 Mass. App. Ct. 1130 · Massachusetts Appeals Court · Mar 2, 2018

The defendant challenges numerous findings made by the trial judge as clearly erroneous. … Having reviewed the record before us, we conclude that all of the factual findings challenged by the defendant have sufficient record support and are thus not clearly erroneous.

Commonwealth v. Davis

54 Mass. App. Ct. 756 · Massachusetts Appeals Court · May 17, 2002

The defendant and Alice 1 had encountered each other while socializing with mutual friends and acquaintances at several drinking establishments on the evening in question. … Fuller, 399 Mass. 678, 682-683 (1987), the statements of a child victim of sexual assault, which were admitted into evidence as an excited utterance, clearly would also have qualified as fresh complaint.

Commonwealth v. Reed

23 Mass. App. Ct. 294 · Massachusetts Appeals Court · Dec 30, 1986

The manager’s testimony established the existence of all four factors. 2 The record involved entries made into *299 inventory when goods were received, and then reports made of sales, with corresponding debits from inventory … In any event, we conclude that the information qualified as a business record and that the defects argued on appeal went to weight.

JOHN NEWMAN v. COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS & Others.

Massachusetts Appeals Court · Jul 31, 2025

Perse, 628 F.2d 679, 685 (1st Cir. 1980).4 4 The plaintiff further argues that the John Doe officers, acting in their individual capacities when they assaulted him, are not entitled to qualified immunity for their … immunity.

Doe v. Sex Offender Registry Board

82 Mass. App. Ct. 152 · Massachusetts Appeals Court · Jul 16, 2012

Qualifying convictions are enumerated in the statute and are defined only in terms of offenses, not underlying conduct. 7 See, e.g., Doe, Sex Offender Registry Bd. No. 151564 v. … While this paragraph also adds a further component to the statutory scheme, it balances the clearly articulated purpose of the legislation to protect vulnerable victims with the also clearly articulated constitutional rights

Commonwealth v. McMullen

93 Mass. App. Ct. 1107 · Massachusetts Appeals Court · Apr 25, 2018

established probable cause for the stop-particularly when the sergeant compared the defendant's speed to that of other vehicles on the road. … This, in his view, qualified him for sentencing under § 24D. We disagree.

Tarpey v. Crescent Ridge Dairy, Inc.

47 Mass. App. Ct. 380 · Massachusetts Appeals Court · Jul 22, 1999

She was placed on prednisone therapy which allegedly compromised her immune system and led ultimately to her death from pneumonia. … Lastly, the motion argued that Rosenberg was not qualified to testify as to the reliability or general acceptance of the Deftos test.

Talmo v. Zoning Board of Appeals of Framingham

93 Mass. App. Ct. 626 · Massachusetts Appeals Court · Jul 24, 2018

Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Newburyport, 421 Mass. 719, 721 (1996), and the judge's determination will not be overturned unless clearly erroneous. Kenner v. … Moreover, even if there were an injurious level of contamination, the judge found that the evidence was insufficient to establish a nexus between that contamination and the septic systems on the Buckleys' property. 8

Commonwealth v. Shangkuan

78 Mass. App. Ct. 827 · Massachusetts Appeals Court · Feb 28, 2011

Here, the return of service was clearly prepared by an official in the performance of an official duty. … There are other ways a statement may qualify under the official or public records exception, see Mass. G. Evid. § 803(8), but they do not apply here.

O'Connell v. Greenwood

59 Mass. App. Ct. 147 · Massachusetts Appeals Court · Sep 4, 2003

The parents were not married at the time, and on January 12, 1996, the mother brought a complaint to establish that the defendant, Geoffrey O’Connell (father), was the child’s father. … A parent whose actions flout this clear and unequivocal right is not immune from a court’s equitable powers simply because each particular act is not among those listed in the custody order.