Case law

Morse v. Board of Selectmen of Ashland

7 Mass. App. Ct. 739 · Massachusetts Appeals Court · Jun 13, 1979

all the testimony indicated that the last person hired for a regular position, approximately three years before the hearing, had previously been a call firefighter, 7 and the chief was satisfied that this individual was qualified … In either event the dismissal was not based on adequate cause established by the evidence.

Kelly v. Brigham & Women's Hospital

51 Mass. App. Ct. 297 · Massachusetts Appeals Court · Apr 11, 2001

A physician’s duty to convey a plaintiff’s clearly expressed limitation on the scope of an autopsy, rather than any questions about the methodology used, does not rise to a level of complexity beyond a jury’s comprehension … The only relevant qualifier is whether the plaintiff is the lawful holder of the right.

Custody of Michel

28 Mass. App. Ct. 260 · Massachusetts Appeals Court · Feb 7, 1990

His order also required DSS to establish a service plan to effect the ultimate reunification of the family unit. The parents and the three younger children have appealed from the custody component of the order. … A quali- *269 fled evaluation, however, may support a similarly qualified judicial finding.

LeBlanc v. Logan Hilton Joint Venture

78 Mass. App. Ct. 699 · Massachusetts Appeals Court · Feb 9, 2011

Clearly, Cosentini twice, once in 1997 and again on January 20, 1999, furnished Broadway Electrical with specific instructions to install the warning signage. The specification was important. … Corp., 408 Mass. at 113 -115 & n.8 (where electrician suffered personal injury by reason of an unlabeled electrical distribution panel, contractual documents established duties of construction engineering firm and plaintiff

Herson v. New Boston Garden Corp.

40 Mass. App. Ct. 779 · Massachusetts Appeals Court · Jul 24, 1996

The jury’s unappealed verdict establishes that Herson’s injuries were not caused by NBG’s “sole negligence.” … An appellate court is to leave such a finding undisturbed unless it concludes that it is “clearly erroneous.” See Hawco, supra; Mass.R.Civ.P. 52(a), 365 Mass. 816 (1974).

Commonwealth v. Segovia

53 Mass. App. Ct. 184 · Massachusetts Appeals Court · Nov 7, 2001

Because of the strong circumstantial evidence establishing the connection between his vehicle and the accident, a decision was made to follow the latter option. … That the decision not to file the motion to suppress the videotape on Miranda grounds might be characterized as a trial tactic, does not in itself render the decision immune from scrutiny. See Commonwealth v.

Doyle v. Department of Industrial Accidents

50 Mass. App. Ct. 42 · Massachusetts Appeals Court · Sep 7, 2000

“To have a property interest in a benefit, a person clearly must have more than an abstract need or desire for it. He must have more than a unilateral expectation of it. … Generally, an individual has a *46 property interest in a benefit when the relevant law establishes certain eligibility criteria which, if met, entitle an individual to the benefit. See Madera v.

Roblin Hope Industries, Inc. v. J. A. Sullivan Corp.

6 Mass. App. Ct. 481 · Massachusetts Appeals Court · Jul 12, 1978

One of the plaintiffs, East Side Construction Company, Inc., the lowest qualified subbidder for the demolition work, argued that its bid should have been accepted. … Sullivan has not contested this finding on appeal, and we do not conclude that that finding was clearly erroneous. See Sanguinetti v. Nantucket Constr. Co.. 5 Mass. App. Ct. 227, 228 (1977).

Jones v. Town of Wayland

4 Mass. App. Ct. 725 · Massachusetts Appeals Court · Dec 28, 1976

The word “regular” which appears in the second sentence of the section modifies the word “compensation,” not the words “police officer,” 10 and there are too many instances in which the Legislature has seen fit to qualify … If the parties do not agree on the facts relevant to that determination, the facts are to be established by the court after a further evidentiary hearing.

Butcher v. University of Massachusetts

111 N.E.3d 294 · Massachusetts Appeals Court · Sep 17, 2018

Time, Inc., 643 F.2d 134, 141-142 (3d Cir. 1981) (allegations in nonpublic, but official, Federal Bureau of Investigation investigatory reports submitted by Philadelphia field office qualified for privilege). … Agis v. 11Butcher has not asserted a claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress. 12Because UMass is statutorily immune, summary judgment properly entered in favor of UMass as to Butcher's intentional

Caveney v. Caveney

81 Mass. App. Ct. 102 · Massachusetts Appeals Court · Jan 12, 2012

The judge found that this representation was “clearly false.” … Fisher), the husband’s counsel stated specifically at trial that he had no objection to the witnesses being qualified as experts in their respective fields, and the witnesses were so qualified by the judge.

Commonwealth v. Gerhartsreiter

82 Mass. App. Ct. 500 · Massachusetts Appeals Court · Sep 28, 2012

The legal standard for determining criminal responsibility, established in Commonwealth v. … The Commonwealth bears the burden of establishing beyond a reasonable doubt that a defendant’s statements were voluntary, Commonwealth v.

Commonwealth v. Bannister

94 Mass. App. Ct. 815 · Massachusetts Appeals Court · Feb 21, 2019

The trial judge qualified Dias as an expert and allowed his testimony that the defendant, Cooper, and the victim belonged to different gangs. … The defendant has the burden to establish both prongs. Commonwealth v. Pike , 53 Mass. App. Ct. 757 , 760, 762 N.E.2d 874 (2002). a. Thermal imaging .

Bulwer v. Mount Auburn Hospital

86 Mass. App. Ct. 316 · Massachusetts Appeals Court · Sep 24, 2014

He did not readily establish rapport, trust, and respect with patients and families. … Otherwise, a conclusory assertion of intent or motive will immunize itself from inspection and force the conduct of an unwarranted trial.

Commonwealth v. Maingrette

86 Mass. App. Ct. 691 · Massachusetts Appeals Court · Dec 3, 2014

Moreover, that the defendant was arrested without a warrant or probable cause was clearly a substantial violation and the discovery of the inculpatory evidence was plainly prejudicial. … Even the Court in Herring made clear that it was not suggesting that “all recordkeeping errors by the police are immune from the exclusionary rule.” Id. at 146 .

Turner v. Turner

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

George , 476 Mass. 65 (2016), he claims that the judge abused her discretion in issuing an alimony order deviating from the presumptive durational limits without clearly expressing the reason for doing so, and in focusing … A judge may, however, deviate beyond these termination dates if written findings establish that doing so is in the interests of justice.

Commonwealth v. Leblanc

92 Mass. App. Ct. 1104 · Massachusetts Appeals Court · Sep 5, 2017

"In reviewing a ruling on a motion to suppress, we accept the judge's subsidiary findings of fact unless they are clearly erroneous but independently review the judge's ultimate findings and conclusions of law." … Such was not the case here, and since the evidence established two separate assaults, the separate convictions were supported. Judgments affirmed .

Bruno v. Alliance Rental Group, LLC

Massachusetts Appeals Court · Aug 29, 2023

To begin the process of establishing mechanic's liens, Alliance recorded four notices of contract. … The judge's finding that Alliance did not knowingly claim more than was due was not clearly erroneous.

Healer v. Department of Environmental Protection

75 Mass. App. Ct. 8 · Massachusetts Appeals Court · Aug 20, 2009

Specifically, the administrative magistrate found that the plaintiffs “did not establish that Bauer’s training as a geologist or his work experience qualify him to provide expert opinion on how the concen *19 trations of … The regulations provide: “Establishment of Discharge Limits.

Postal Community Credit Union v. Commissioner of Banks

61 Mass. App. Ct. 563 · Massachusetts Appeals Court · Jul 27, 2004

Reg. 12659 -12660, 12662 (1995), the NCUA established that prior approval of the applicable State regulator was a condition to the obtaining of NCUA’s approval of the conversion. … “[A] statute should not be read in derogation of a State’s sovereign interests unless it clearly appears that Congress so *569 intended . . . .” Apkin v. Treasurer & Receiver Gen., 401 Mass. 427, 431 (1988).