Case law

Nemet v. Boston Water & Sewer Commission

56 Mass. App. Ct. 104 · Massachusetts Appeals Court · Sep 26, 2002

The Nemets did not meet their burden, say the *109 defendants, because the Nemets neither knew how the pipe broke nor are they qualified to advance such an opinion. … By virtue of the Act, the Commonwealth waives its sovereign immunity, thereby enabling plaintiffs to bring negligence actions against governmental entities.

Diamond Crystal Brands, Inc. v. Backleaf, LLC

60 Mass. App. Ct. 502 · Massachusetts Appeals Court · Feb 24, 2004

“Although whether a particular set of acts, in their factual setting, is unfair or deceptive is a question of fact. . . the boundaries of what may qualify for consideration as a G. … It is Diamond’s burden on appeal to establish that the judge’s finding was clearly erroneous by demonstrating that it was not supported by “any reasonable view of the evidence, including all rational inferences of which it

Willowdale LLC v. Board of Assessors of Topsfield

78 Mass. App. Ct. 767 · Massachusetts Appeals Court · Feb 16, 2011

It will be recognized only where the property falls clearly and unmistakably within the express words of a legislative command.” New England Legal Foundation v. … board erred in not giving deference to a 2001 letter from DEM (now DCR) opining that Willowdale’s use of the mansion under the historic curatorship program was reasonably necessary to the public purpose of a park so as to qualify

Town of Wrentham v. Housing Appeals Committee

69 Mass. App. Ct. 449 · Massachusetts Appeals Court · Jun 27, 2007

HAC clearly has jurisdiction to determine in the first instance whether a denial of a comprehensive permit application comports with the statute when that denial is predicated on asserted compliance with the town’s minimum … Newton, 397 Mass. 329, 333-335 (1986) (styling claim as one for declaratory judgment does not establish basis for judicial review that does not otherwise exist).

DeMayo v. Quinn

87 Mass. App. Ct. 115 · Massachusetts Appeals Court · Feb 24, 2015

Here, the uncontested evidence, as captured on video 2 A relationship between the parties is not required to qualify for a c. 258E harassment prevention order; the same is not true for abuse prevention orders … Given the judge's findings, which we will not disturb on appeal unless clearly erroneous, Millennium Equity Holdings, LLC v.

Prenaveau v. Prenaveau

81 Mass. App. Ct. 479 · Massachusetts Appeals Court · Mar 26, 2012

However, the mother has also clearly established a lengthy track record of paying attention to and attending to the needs of the children. … In a bench trial credibility is “quintessentially the domain of the trial judge [so that his] assessment is close to immune from reversal on appeal except on the most compelling of showings.” Johnston v.

Commonwealth v. Clark

65 Mass. App. Ct. 39 · Massachusetts Appeals Court · Nov 2, 2005

To qualify as ‘reasonable,’ the officer’s suspicion ‘must be based on specific, articulable facts and reasonable inferences drawn therefrom.’ … We cannot say on this record that the judge was clearly wrong to base no findings on this, at best, highly ambiguous testimony.

Tanner v. Board of Appeals

61 Mass. App. Ct. 647 · Massachusetts Appeals Court · Aug 18, 2004

To support their application, the plaintiffs argued that their operation qualifies as a hospital within the meaning of the zoning bylaw. … the case involved a challenge to the validity of a provision of the by-law prohibiting retail use of the plaintiff’s land; any discussion of uses falling within the agricultural category was unrelated to the holding and clearly

Parker v. D'Avolio

40 Mass. App. Ct. 394 · Massachusetts Appeals Court · May 6, 1996

First was his contention that the defendants denied liability when they “clearly knew they were liable.” … Indeed, neither negligence nor knowledge of the risk is required to establish liability under G. L. c. 111, § 199. See Bencosme v. Kokoras, 400 Mass. 40, 43 (1987).

MacDonough v. Board of Directors

28 Mass. App. Ct. 538 · Massachusetts Appeals Court · Apr 23, 1990

But as the commercial space involved was actually space in the basement which hardly qualified for retail business, Antonelli asked the plaintiff for further substantiation. … But the case in the plaintiff’s own light does not fall within the established public policy categories above described.

Shoolman v. Health Facilities Appeals Board

10 Mass. App. Ct. 799 · Massachusetts Appeals Court · Dec 11, 1980

Were we to read into § 25E the standing requirements argued by the defendants, it would severely qualify the otherwise clear language of § 25G. … The plaintiffs argue that this study is clearly mandated by the statute. We find no support for this argument. General Laws c.

DiGiulio v. Director of the Department of Unemployment Assistance

94 Mass. App. Ct. 292 · Massachusetts Appeals Court · Oct 24, 2018

The Legislature's use of the words "[n]otwithstanding the provisions of this subsection" in paragraph twelve "clearly signals the drafter's intention that the provisions of the 'notwithstanding' section override conflicting … Here, DiGiulio's husband is an agent of the DEA and thus does not qualify as a serving member in the armed forces. See G.

Mahoney v. Mahoney

5 Mass. App. Ct. 720 · Massachusetts Appeals Court · Dec 19, 1977

Mahoney qualified as executrix of the will. … The action sought to establish the existence of a trust, to compel Anne E. Mahoney to transfer the assets of the estate from herself to the trust, and to remove her as trustee.

Doe v. Sex Offender Registry Board

85 Mass. App. Ct. 482 · Massachusetts Appeals Court · Jun 18, 2014

This sentence refers to the fact that the Maine statute in question was narrower than the Massachusetts statute, and therefore “any act that qualifies as sexual conduct under the Maine statute would qualify as indecent under … SORB also relies on excerpts of the kidnapping trial transcript and factual allegations in the Federal criminal complaint, but these clearly and impermissibly speak to the underlying conduct.

Commonwealth v. Rodriguez

92 Mass. App. Ct. 774 · Massachusetts Appeals Court · Nov 3, 2017

Even with a qualified officer testifying, field test evidence may not be offered without a demonstration of its validity or reliability under Lanigan . … The improper use of the field test result clearly prejudiced the defendant, and we cannot say with fair assurance that the error had but slight effect. 2. Limitations on defense evidence .

Commonwealth v. Brugmann

13 Mass. App. Ct. 373 · Massachusetts Appeals Court · Apr 1, 1982

Sternglass is a qualified expert on the effects of nuclear radiation. … L. c. 263, § 40, reads as follows: “(a) Conduct is justified if it is necessary to avoid a harm, provided that: (1) the harm sought to be avoided by such conduct is clearly greater than that sought to be prevented by the

Colony of Wellfleet, Inc. v. Harris

71 Mass. App. Ct. 522 · Massachusetts Appeals Court · Apr 7, 2008

The trial judge determined that the Colony qualified as a “person in interest” under G. … These findings are not clearly erroneous.

English v. Board of Selectmen

8 Mass. App. Ct. 736 · Massachusetts Appeals Court · Nov 27, 1979

Shea to *738 the board “for the purpose of establishing sickness disability” of the plaintiff “and entitlement to sick leave pay” also included that diagnosis. … He did not clearly refute Dr. Shea’s finding that the plaintiff was unable to return to work, a finding which need not be made by a physician designated by the board, but can be made by any qualified doctor. Jones v.

Montgomery v. Bd. of Selectmen of Nantucket

95 Mass. App. Ct. 65 · Massachusetts Appeals Court · Mar 14, 2019

The issue of aggrievement is a question of fact for the judge, and the judge's ultimate findings on the issue will not be disturbed unless clearly erroneous. … ," and they did not otherwise qualify as aggrieved persons under G.

Davidson v. General Motors Corp.

57 Mass. App. Ct. 637 · Massachusetts Appeals Court · Mar 25, 2003

The plaintiffs claim that once the new closely held corporation was established, GM/MHD had a fiduciary duty toward them. The motion judge agreed. … of their conclusory nature, support an inference that GM/MHD failed to act with good faith and deal fairly with the plaintiffs. 9 The structure created by the parties to govern their relationship in this new enterprise clearly