Case law

Sniffin v. Prudential Insurance Co. of America

11 Mass. App. Ct. 714 · Massachusetts Appeals Court · Apr 21, 1981

Also, the judge enlarged the number of parties who could benefit from the board’s rent increase determination by encompassing all tenants who qualified under the standards of Columbia Corp. vs. … The board had proceeded on a building-wide basis, and its mistaken reliance on the “Goldberg” formula clearly predominated over any questions affecting only individual tenants.

Arrigo v. Planning Board of Franklin

12 Mass. App. Ct. 802 · Massachusetts Appeals Court · Dec 21, 1981

The two lots shown on the Mercers’ subdivision plan have long frontages on an established public way. … Such a bailing out is clearly not in the public interest and is plainly contrary to the intent and purpose of G. L. c. 41.” 7 An exception was Planning Bd. of Framingham v. Board of Appeals of Framingham, 5 Mass. App.

Merrill v. Ewen

Massachusetts Appeals Court · Jul 25, 2023

permanent residency away from the residence of the mother, or (5) established full-time employment after age eighteen. … c. 188, § 3 (b) (4), the Legislature clearly evinced an intent to prioritize support orders over the homestead estate.

RONALD GOLDMAN & others v. SECRETARY OF THE EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES.

101 Mass. App. Ct. 427 · Massachusetts Appeals Court · Jul 22, 2022

To qualify for Federal funding, participating States must submit for approval by CMS a "plan that details the nature and scope of the State's Medicaid program." Id. … [Note 9] Although the complaint states that MassHealth's coverage of neonatal circumcision is "[p]rohibited by Federal [l]aw," it does not clearly specify which provisions of Federal law are at issue.

Judd v. McCormack

27 Mass. App. Ct. 167 · Massachusetts Appeals Court · Mar 28, 1989

Next we note that “[w]ith a qualified or conditional privilege, a defendant is protected unless he abuses the privilege. See Retailers Commercial Agency, Inc., petitioner, 342 Mass. 515, 520-522 (1961); Galvin v. … This happens when both parties to the communication know the facts or assume their existence and the comment is clearly based on those assumed facts and does not imply the existence of other facts in order to justify the

Commonwealth v. Kenneally

10 Mass. App. Ct. 162 · Massachusetts Appeals Court · Jul 1, 1980

The warrant did not exceed the foundation of probable cause established by the affidavit. Judge’s Instructions. … As such it may not be as immune from challenge as the language, “doubt based upon a reason,” standing alone, now appears to be. Compare Commonwealth v.

Govoni & Sons Construction Co. v. Mechanics Bank

51 Mass. App. Ct. 35 · Massachusetts Appeals Court · Feb 23, 2001

The bank asserts that it qualifies as a holder in due course and is therefore protected from liability to the Govonis. We disagree. … There is widespread authority that “payment of checks with missing indorsements” involves “clearly unreasonable conduct on the part of the bank.”

J.K.S. v. D.S.S.

Massachusetts Appeals Court · Aug 21, 2024

argument, however, the husband could cite no evidence that the wife ever agreed to any such plan, and no evidence regarding the level of benefits the wife could expect to obtain from Medicare or MassHealth if and when she qualified … Although the judge commented at trial that the wife should try to qualify for MassHealth, the husband supplied no evidence of the extent to which MassHealth would actually help meet the wife's financial need.

Commonwealth v. Carlos Cuba

Massachusetts Appeals Court · Nov 6, 2025

"[2] Estrada was qualified as an expert in fingerprint identification. … It is not enough for a fingerprint expert to avoid testifying that the match is one hundred percent certain; the Commonwealth has an affirmative duty to establish on direct examination that the expert's testimony is only

Enos v. Secretary of Environmental Affairs

48 Mass. App. Ct. 239 · Massachusetts Appeals Court · Nov 22, 1999

MEPA’s area of concern clearly is the protection of the environment from damage caused by projects having an environmental impact. … Affairs, 402 Mass. 611, 614 (1988), 13 the court wrote that “[t]he purpose of MEPA was to protect the environment, and that, therefore, an allegation of a violation of MEPA or a regulation pursuant to MEPA qualified under

Commonwealth v. Rubio

27 Mass. App. Ct. 506 · Massachusetts Appeals Court · Jun 28, 1989

There is nothing in the record to establish that someone who has been arrested is ordinarily shown the evidence against him as part of the arrest process so that he can admit or disclaim ownership. … Keeping in mind that the police were members of a drug task force, and that Lieutenant Jajuga was qualified at the trial and gave testimony as an expert in the method of operation of drug traffickers, one can infer that it

Miles v. Beusch

94 Mass. App. Ct. 1118 · Massachusetts Appeals Court · Jan 24, 2019

Thus, though we see no error in the judge's determination that the husband is "eminently" qualified for a director-level equity analyst position earning upwards of $ 400,000 per year, it is unclear from this record if and … The husband failed to include a copy of the GAL's report in the record appendix, and the only record citation he provides in his brief does not clearly establish that the GAL recommended joint legal custody.

Commonwealth v. Wright

Massachusetts Appeals Court · Aug 18, 2015

The applicant is then able to employ the EBT card to make qualifying purchases. … Section 59 establishes venue for larceny by false pretenses as follows: "The crime of obtaining money or a personal chattel by a false pretence . . . may be alleged to have been committed, the Commonwealth could

Commonwealth v. Murphy

59 Mass. App. Ct. 571 · Massachusetts Appeals Court · Oct 15, 2003

Frangipane, 433 Mass. 527, 538 (2001) {Lanigan hearing not necessary where qualified expert testimony has been accepted as reliable in the past in Massachusetts appellate cases). 6 There was no abuse of discretion or error … The trial court’s finding here was not clearly erroneous, nor was there an abuse of discretion.

Casey v. Casey

79 Mass. App. Ct. 623 · Massachusetts Appeals Court · Jun 7, 2011

[including] . . . military retirement benefits if qualified under and to the extent provided by federal law.” … financial award as a whole, including the treatment of the husband’s military pension as a stream of income, combined with the failure to award any alimony, 13 and the errors made in attributing income to the wife and in establishing

Commonwealth v. Scott

52 Mass. App. Ct. 486 · Massachusetts Appeals Court · Sep 6, 2001

It is well established that, when reviewing action on a motion to suppress, “we accept the motion judge’s subsidiary findings of fact absent clear error.” Commonwealth v. … To qualify as ‘reasonable,’ the officer’s suspicion ‘must be based on specific, articulable facts and reasonable inferences drawn therefrom.’

Zeh v. Zeh

35 Mass. App. Ct. 260 · Massachusetts Appeals Court · Sep 3, 1993

The applicable legal principles are well established. “Under G. L. c. 208, § 34, a judge has broad discretion to divide marital property equitably. See Drapek v. Drapek, 399 Mass. 240, 243 (1987). … While an expectancy of an inheritance does not qualify as property subject to division under G.

Trio Algarvio, Inc. v. Department of Environmental Protection

56 Mass. App. Ct. 425 · Massachusetts Appeals Court · Nov 12, 2002

That demand, we think, is clearly in derogation of the grant formerly made, and cannot be sustained.” Id. at 83. … Therefore, Trio’s property does not qualify for the exemption from the Department’s definition of Commonwealth tidelands.”

Commonwealth v. Cruz

53 Mass. App. Ct. 393 · Massachusetts Appeals Court · Dec 18, 2001

There were additionally no “corroborat[ing] . . . circumstances clearly indicating [their] trustworthiness,” Commonwealth v. … Until the long-established rule here applied has been expressly altered by the Supreme Judicial Court (see, e.g., id. at 69-72 ; Flood v.

Boston Licensing Board v. City of Boston

17 Mass. App. Ct. 10 · Massachusetts Appeals Court · Oct 21, 1983

Although there was no explicit provision for other expenses of the board, the 1878 act clearly made the board subject to the authority of the mayor and city council. … While we do not place great weight on the preenactment statements of individual legislators in establishing legislative intent (see Chrysler Corp. v.