Case law

LAUREN WOODWARD v. BOARD OF REGISTRATION IN NURSING & Another.

Massachusetts Appeals Court · Dec 31, 2025

statutorily immunized from the plaintiff's claims under the defense set forth in G. L. c. 149, § 105A (d). … A self-evaluation that is conducted so as to achieve certain pre-determined results [i.e., to find no disparities] or to justify known disparities likely will not qualify as good faith"). See also Garcia v.

City of Boston v. Roxbury Action Program, Inc.

68 Mass. App. Ct. 468 · Massachusetts Appeals Court · Mar 16, 2007

Rather, the instrument establishes a date for performance, no later than July 31, 1974. The city’s cause of action accrued on that date when RAP failed to perform. … The city’s reliance on a single communication regarding a tax issue in 2002, many years after the limitation period had passed, hardly raises a question of fact as to whether RAP had clearly repudiated the trust.

Gregory Hayward v. Bernadette McCaffrey.

Massachusetts Appeals Court · May 7, 2025

But there is no such asymmetry; the language of the addendum clearly states that neither party intends to be bound. … The limited 4 record before us does not clearly establish the absence of a dispute of material fact on that point.

Calvanese v. WW Babcock Co., Inc.

10 Mass. App. Ct. 726 · Massachusetts Appeals Court · Nov 21, 1980

The final determination “must be largely left to the discretion of the trial judge, and that discretion will not be interfered with unless in its exercise he clearly appears to be wrong.” Griffin v. … The reports did not qualify as hospital records under G. L. c. 233, § 79. Nor were they business records under G. L. c. 233, § 78. Contrast Poirier v. Plymouth, 374 Mass. at 210-211 .

Custody of a Minor

13 Mass. App. Ct. 290 · Massachusetts Appeals Court · Mar 12, 1982

They were unable to establish a stable home, 3 perhaps because of disapproval of the mother’s family. … Grey works there two and a half days a week. *302 All three have strong academic and professional credentials and are obviously well qualified as experts.

WINDROCK TRUST COMPANY, LLC, Trustee v. PLANNING BOARD OF LINCOLN.

Massachusetts Appeals Court · Nov 20, 2024

That decision was not immune from review (and may have even failed on review), but the time for seeking that review expired approximately forty years before the trust filed suit in this case.4 See G. … Futility of the amendment, however, qualifies as a "good reason." See Doherty, supra (futility "good reason" for denying motion to amend [citation omitted]).

Hunneman Real Estate Corp. v. Norwood Realty, Inc.

54 Mass. App. Ct. 416 · Massachusetts Appeals Court · Apr 9, 2002

Where intention is clearly stated or evident, the analytical focus generally turns to whether the inchoate or unresolved aspects of the parties’ agreement are “essential” or “material.” … The express covenant to “negotiate the full purchase and sale agreement and consummate the agreements contemplated” in the letter of intent is not qualified by a disclaimer as was that in Schwanbeck v.

Reliance Insurance v. Commissioner of Insurance

31 Mass. App. Ct. 581 · Massachusetts Appeals Court · Nov 22, 1991

L. c. 175, § 113H (1988 ed.), as a residual market mechanism to provide motor vehicle liability insurance to qualified drivers who would otherwise be unable to obtain motor vehicle insurance in the voluntary market. … The official summary of the regulations provides: “211 CMR 54.00 establishes procedures which shall constitute the administrative process by which insurers authorized to write motor vehicle insurance may initiate the process

VALERIANO DIVIACCHI v. BOARD OF APPEAL OF BOSTON & Others.

Massachusetts Appeals Court · Mar 10, 2025

Instead, contrary to clearly-established precedent, he asserts that he enjoyed a presumption of aggrievement because the board sent him a notice of the hearing pertaining to McKenna's request for variances. … We thus conclude that Diviacchi failed to establish 3 that he had standing to challenge the board's decision.

Commonwealth v. Foster

77 Mass. App. Ct. 444 · Massachusetts Appeals Court · Aug 24, 2010

The defendant argues “the hearing Judge stated that... he thought it was a close question whether the police reports qualified as admissible under . . . Commonwealth v. Darling, 407 Mass. 108 (1990) . . . .” … The second police report, a six-line recounting of the victim’s identification of the defendant’s photograph, also was clearly admissible.

Touher v. Town of Essex

87 Mass. App. Ct. 837 · Massachusetts Appeals Court · Aug 10, 2015

Indeed, a case that ends in settlement does not qualify as "success" for the purposes of judicial estoppel. East Cambridge Sav. … The judge properly considered all the relevant factors, and his ultimate conclusion that the structures are affixed to the land is neither wrong as a matter of law nor clearly erroneous as a matter of fact.

Stacy v. Stacy

Massachusetts Appeals Court · Mar 13, 2020

To answer this question we must examine the State law at issue and the applicable Federal law, and then determine whether they are in conflict under the preemption standards established by the 3 The husband raised … Moreover, in so ruling the Court squarely rejected an argument that the language of the anti-attachment statute should be read more narrowly, as merely a restatement of "the Government's sovereign immunity from burdensome

Cooper v. Cooper

62 Mass. App. Ct. 130 · Massachusetts Appeals Court · Sep 24, 2004

She found the expert to be “highly qualified” and that he had provided the court with “invaluable expertise with respect to the quite complex financial aspects of this case.” … The findings, which describe, with respect to the three children, “worsening symptoms” and “physical and emotional difficulties because of the divorce,” are amply supported by the evidence and are not clearly erroneous.

ADOPTION OF CORA (And Three Companion Cases).

Massachusetts Appeals Court · Jun 22, 2026

Ct. 620, 626 (1998) 15 was the father's lack of familiarity with and inability to provide for these needs, "clearly establish parental unfitness." … Ct. 120, 125 (1984) (specialized needs of particular child combined with parental deficiencies "may clearly establish unfitness"). 2. Best interests of the children.

Costa v. Fall River Housing Authority

71 Mass. App. Ct. 269 · Massachusetts Appeals Court · Feb 27, 2008

She participates in the Federal Housing Choice Voucher Program popularly known as “section 8” assistance. 4 Under its terms, Costa qualified as a low-income recipient of rental assistance from a local public housing authority … HUD requires PHAs to “adopt a written administrative plan that establishes local policies for administration of the program.” 24 C.F.R. § 982.54 (a) (2007).

Chomerics, Inc. v. Board of Assessors

6 Mass. App. Ct. 394 · Massachusetts Appeals Court · May 31, 1978

This rule rests on the principle, established by Sioux City Bridge Co. v. … We cannot say that the trial judge was clearly wrong in refusing to accept this testimony as determinative of the establishment of such a class.

Commonwealth v. Mitchell

Massachusetts Appeals Court · Jul 10, 2023

Clearly, the juror's assessment in this regard was incorrect. … This finding was clearly erroneous.

Russell v. City of New Bedford

74 Mass. App. Ct. 715 · Massachusetts Appeals Court · Jul 29, 2009

One of the appropriate circumstances is where “the decision- *721 maker possesses final authority to establish municipal policy with respect to the action ordered,” id. at 481 , which “may be granted directly by a legislative … Evidence of, and instructions about, value after restoration and future rental income was clearly inappropriate in this case as overly speculative.

Heins v. Wilhelm Loh Wetzlar Optical Machinery GmbH & Co. KG.

26 Mass. App. Ct. 14 · Massachusetts Appeals Court · May 11, 1988

United States; it does not pay Federal or Massachusetts income taxes; it owns no property in Massachusetts; it is not registered or qualified to do business in Massachusetts; and it maintains no banking relations here. … As a result, the statutory standard has not always been clearly and separately defined. See and compare “Automatic” Sprinkler Corp., 361 Mass. at 442-443 ; Droukas v.

Mattoon v. City of Pittsfield

56 Mass. App. Ct. 124 · Massachusetts Appeals Court · Sep 27, 2002

Our review, as in any case where the judgment is based on findings of fact under rule 52(a), is under the clearly erroneous standard. See Smith & Zobel, Rules Practice § 41.10 (1977). … These inferences are not enough here to establish causation in the absence of expert testimony. See Enrich v.