Case law

Ramos v. Board of Selectmen

16 Mass. App. Ct. 308 · Massachusetts Appeals Court · Jul 5, 1983

The trial judge interpreted the emphasized language in this quotation from the Gildea case as establishing an “exception to the immunity principles set down in the Gildea” case, if it is shown that harm was caused to Ramos … [of counts II and III] which very clearly and explicitly set forth a claim for breach of contract against the [t]own.”

Morton v. Potts

57 Mass. App. Ct. 55 · Massachusetts Appeals Court · Jan 9, 2003

established by her parents over which she held powers of appointment. … Had Lindsay intended such a result, she clearly could have stated so expressly in article two or elsewhere in the trust instrument. *59 That she did not do so strongly suggests that she did not intend the trust to fail in

Searcy v. Paul

20 Mass. App. Ct. 134 · Massachusetts Appeals Court · May 31, 1985

bring actions for negligence against third parties, either individuals or corporations, even if in some degree affiliated with the insured employer corporation (at least where no joint venture with another defendant is established … L. c. 152 (after the 1971 amendments) extends any immunity to Paul, if DLP was his agent, because Vortex (insured under c. 152) had made a lump sum settlement with Searcy.

Metropolitan Property & Casualty Insurance v. Morel

60 Mass. App. Ct. 379 · Massachusetts Appeals Court · Jan 29, 2004

The summary judgment record establishes the following relevant facts. … In view of the qualifying word, “immediate,” this statement is not the dispositive concession that Metropolitan makes it out to be. In any event, Morel’s testimony is not determinative of the legal question presented.

DiPietro v. Sipex Corp.

69 Mass. App. Ct. 29 · Massachusetts Appeals Court · May 14, 2007

In not clearly raising the defense of fraud until he responded to Sipex’s summary judgment papers, DiPietro failed to abide by both rules. … Accord Amar & Katyal, Executive Privileges and Immunities: The Nixon and Clinton Cases, 108 Harv. L.

Butler v. City of Waltham

63 Mass. App. Ct. 435 · Massachusetts Appeals Court · May 5, 2005

L. c. 40A, § 17”). 12 A plaintiff qualifies as an “person aggrieved” upon a showing that his or her legal rights will be infringed by the board’s action. Marashlian v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Newburyport, supra. … Zoning Bd. of Appeal of Newburyport, supra at 721-722 (“standing is ‘essentially a question of fact for the trial judge,’ which will be reversed only if ‘clearly erroneous’ ”).

Sheppard v. Zoning Board of Appeal

74 Mass. App. Ct. 8 · Massachusetts Appeals Court · Apr 2, 2009

L. c. 40A, § 17, or under § 11 of the enabling act, she must qualify as a “person aggrieved” by a zoning board’s decision. … For the following reasons, we conclude that Sheppard met this burden and the trial judge’s conclusion to the contrary was clearly erroneous.

Adoption of Terrence

57 Mass. App. Ct. 832 · Massachusetts Appeals Court · Apr 24, 2003

The judge’s findings regarding her cognitive limitations and mental illness were well supported, and the nexus to her unfitness to parent well established. … The judge’s findings are not clearly erroneous; they show clearly and convincingly that the mother is unfit and not capable of providing for the welfare and best interests of the child. b. Burden shifting.

Commonwealth v. Moran

80 Mass. App. Ct. 8 · Massachusetts Appeals Court · Aug 4, 2011

Given those well-established guidelines, the evidence was sufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant’s conduct was offensive and disorderly. … Reading it to require proof of multiple acts would mean that one who by a single hand gesture clearly pantomimed an offensive suggestion would be immune from prosecution but a person who verbalized precisely the same suggestion

Commonwealth v. Sullivan

76 Mass. App. Ct. 864 · Massachusetts Appeals Court · Jun 4, 2010

On February 17, Smith again met the officers at the FBI office; Smith called the defendant and established a meeting at 55 Dearborn Street in Springfield. … “While the testimony of [Geiger and Dillon] as to statements made by [Smith] is clearly hearsay, ‘[t]he hearsay rule forbids only the testimonial use of reported statements.

Care & Protection of Yetta

84 Mass. App. Ct. 691 · Massachusetts Appeals Court · Jan 16, 2014

On the record before us, we are not persuaded that the parental shortcomings needed to establish parental unfitness are present. … Such findings should be stated clearly, concisely and unequivocally, and be worded so that they are not susceptible of more than one interpretation.” Commonwealth v.

Commonwealth v. Denham

8 Mass. App. Ct. 724 · Massachusetts Appeals Court · Nov 21, 1979

That motion came on for hearing on November 1, 1977, by which time the court had received written reports from two psychiatrists which appeared to qualify as the type of report contemplated by G. L. c. 123A, §§ 4 and 5. … The judge was clearly correct on both points.

O'Leary v. Education Resources Institute, Inc.

61 Mass. App. Ct. 653 · Massachusetts Appeals Court · Aug 18, 2004

Further, after finding that O’Leary’s action was contrary to clearly established law, see Air Purchases, Inc. v. Mechanical Coordinators Corp., 21 Mass. *655 App. … The fact that O’Leary chose to represent himself, as he was qualified to do given his legal education and training, rather than retain independent counsel, does not nullify his status as a lawyer advocating his own interests

JONATHAN MAIN, personal representative v. R.J. REYNOLDS TOBACCO COMPANY & another.

100 Mass. App. Ct. 827 · Massachusetts Appeals Court · Apr 8, 2022

See id. at 435 ("We decline to place addictive chemicals outside the reach of product liability and give them special protection akin to immunity based solely on the strength of their addictive qualities"). … Christiani's testimony to establish the 1966 date. [Note 8] The plaintiff presented two expert witnesses on the issue of cigarette design (Dr. Kenneth Michael Cummings and Dr.

Castricone v. Mical

74 Mass. App. Ct. 591 · Massachusetts Appeals Court · Jul 2, 2009

the diminution of the established reputation by similar or inferior goods or services (“dilution” of its reputation); and the deception of the consumer. … For the following reasons, that finding is supportable and not “clearly erroneous” within the meaning of Mass.R.Civ.P. 52(a), as amended, 423 Mass. 1402 (1996).

The Norfolk & Dedham Group v. Town of Falmouth.

Massachusetts Appeals Court · Oct 4, 2024

The plaintiff argues that the town is not entitled to immunity under G. … Ct. at 92 n.9 (immunity under § 10 [j] does not apply to negligent maintenance by town).

Commonwealth v. Silva

10 Mass. App. Ct. 784 · Massachusetts Appeals Court · Dec 9, 1980

29,1979, when he was advised by a family member to contact the Essex district attorney’s office. 5 Insofar as relevant to our later discussion, the only exculpatory evidence provided by the Commonwealth related to a grant of immunity … Of course, it would have been better practice for the District Court judge to have clearly identified the basis for his action and to have stated whether the dismissal was with prejudice.

Peddar v. Peddar

43 Mass. App. Ct. 192 · Massachusetts Appeals Court · Jul 22, 1997

Section 2-205(d) of the uniform act qualifies the availability of § 2-207(a) and (6). 9 Section 2-205(d) provides that “[a] tribunal of the commonwealth shall recognize the continuing, exclusive jurisdiction of a tribunal … The demands of the Federal act are clearly revealed in a “Statement of Policy” in which Congress declared that “it is necessary to establish national standards under which the courts of the various States shall determine

Commonwealth v. Barbot

92 Mass. App. Ct. 1118 · Massachusetts Appeals Court · Dec 15, 2017

To qualify as reasonable, the officer's suspicion must be based on "specific, articulable facts and reasonable inferences drawn therefrom." Commonwealth v. DePeiza , 449 Mass. 367 , 371 (2007) (quotation omitted). … Because the facts known to the police established a reasonable basis for stopping the defendant, we need not go further.

Greeley v. Civil Service Commission

1 Mass. App. Ct. 746 · Massachusetts Appeals Court · Feb 8, 1974

For these reasons the petitioner cannot avail himself of the proviso to qualify as a “veteran.” *754 3. … Clearly the Legislature may afford some classes of veterans a greater preference than others. See Hutcheson v. Director of Civil Service, 361 Mass. 480,485-487 (1972).