Case law

Shulman v. Scola

1985 Mass. App. Div. 53 · Massachusetts District Court, Appellate Division · Mar 13, 1985

The bank rejected the application because plaintiff had insufficient income to qualify. Other financing was considered but, at 13-14%, was too costly for plaintiff and therefore no further applications were filed. … P. states clearly: “The appellate division need not pass upon questions or issues not argued in briefs.” Plaintiff has thus waived his right of review on said ruling.

Gallup v. Alden

57 Mass. App. Dec. 41 · Massachusetts District Court, Appellate Division · Aug 20, 1975

No person other than the trial judge is qualified to render an opinion as to what are appropriate credentials requisite to qualifying a person as an expert. 15. … In each of the three categories of the definition of “likelihood of serious harm” in §1, the character and degree of harm must be established “as manifested by evidence”.

Shoulders v. Commonwealth

1984 Mass. App. Div. 66 · Massachusetts District Court, Appellate Division · Feb 29, 1984

In order for a person to qualify for compensation under this statute, the petition must establish that he or she is a person eligible for recovery in accordance with its terms. Mitchell v. Commonwealth, Mass. App. Div. … In the case of a deceased victim, one must qualify as a dependent. PERLIN AND CONNORS, HANDBOOK OF CIVIL PROCEDURE IN THE MASS. DIST. COURTS, (1980), P. 188.

Cardoza v. Cardoza

2006 Mass. App. Div. 137 · Massachusetts District Court, Appellate Division · Aug 30, 2006

However, not every written expression by a trial justice in an order disposing of a civil case qualifies as a statement of voluntary findings of fact for purposes of Mass. R. Civ. R, Rule 52 (c). … She established a bank account for the tenant to deposit his monthly rent check. The fact that the parties were related (they are cousins) doesn’t preclude a finding that the parties were in commerce.

Instant Image Print Shop, Inc. v. Lavigne, Keating, Halstead, Inc.

1998 Mass. App. Div. 74 · Massachusetts District Court, Appellate Division · Apr 15, 1998

Keating (Keating), attempting to establish Keating’s personal liability for debts incurred by LaVigne Keating Co., Inc., (the Corporation), a Massachusetts corporation of which Keating was treasurer and director. … An individual is not immunized as an officer of a corporation for the acts he is alleged to have committed personally. Nader v. Citron, 372 Mass. 96, 102 (1977).

Kaplan v. Plymouth Rock Assurance Corp.

2008 Mass. App. Div. 160 · Massachusetts District Court, Appellate Division · Jul 25, 2008

The memorandum, Kaplan contends, contained judicial admissions establishing the connection of Kaplan’s treatment to the *161 motor vehicle accident. … Based on his subsequent ruling, the trial judge clearly chose not to bind Plymouth Rock to the qualified and limited rendition of the facts by its attorney.

Dao Bui v. Vazquez

1999 Mass. App. Div. 5 · Massachusetts District Court, Appellate Division · Jan 13, 1999

After a two day trial, the trial judge made express written findings clearly stating that he affirmatively disbelieved the plaintiffs’ testimony and was unpersuaded that they were either in the car at the time in question … Such qualified statements fell well short of establishing any inability to be impartial or to rule fairly. See Haddad v.

Mervis v. Elm Street Realty Trust

1999 Mass. App. Div. 50 · Massachusetts District Court, Appellate Division · Feb 9, 1999

On those matters, there were no significant factual disputes, and the trial court’s findings were sufficiently supported by the evidence and thus not “clearly erroneous.” Demoulas v. … It is established that “[u]nless otherwise qualified by express language, a financing condition clause presupposes that the buyers will accept commercially reasonable loan terms.” Lynch v. Andrew, 20 Mass. App.

Lynn Physical Therapy, Inc. v. Commerce Insurance

2011 Mass. App. Div. 107 · Massachusetts District Court, Appellate Division · May 4, 2011

shall specify so much of it as is true and qualify or deny the remainder.” … The defense of noncooperation was clearly established, and summary judgment was properly allowed. Judgment affirmed. So ordered.

Nisby v. Sheskey

2007 Mass. App. Div. 103 · Massachusetts District Court, Appellate Division · Jun 26, 2007

A refusal to sublet to a qualified tenant, or to permit assignment without reason, “was a substantial breach going to the root of the contract. ...” Aerostatic Eng’g Corp. v. Szczawinski, 1 Mass. App. … It is well established that a material breach by one party excuses the other party from further performance under the contract. Quintin Vespa Co. v. Construction Serv. Co., 343 Mass. 696 , 701-702 (1962).

Floyd v. Owens

2009 Mass. App. Div. 219 · Massachusetts District Court, Appellate Division · Oct 14, 2009

Clearly undaunted, and continuing to eschew appellate review, Owens simply filed a third motion to vacate the default judgment on December 7,2007. … The default entered against her effectively established the truth of the well-pleaded factual allegations of Floyd’s complaint for purposes of liability. Nancy P. v. D ‘Amato, 401 Mass. 516, 519 (1988); Reichenbach v.

Wendt v. Barnum

2007 Mass. App. Div. 93 · Massachusetts District Court, Appellate Division · Jun 18, 2007

from suit rather than a mere defense to liability; and like an absolute immunity, it is effectively lost if a case is erroneously permitted to go to trial” (emphasis in original). … The invoice submitted by Wendt’s attorney in support of his motion for attorney’s fees contains a number of charges clearly unrelated to Wendt’s security deposit claim.

Miller v. Pioneer Cooperative of Franklin County, Inc.

2004 Mass. App. Div. 84 · Massachusetts District Court, Appellate Division · May 24, 2004

After qualifying, a member would be required to pay $500 for his or her share and then he or she would have the right to occupy one of the units. … The judge’s findings may not be set aside unless clearly erroneous. G.E B. v. S.R.W., 422 Mass. 158 (1996).

Hibbard v. Rocchi

11 Mass. App. Dec. 34 · Massachusetts District Court, Appellate Division · Dec 16, 1955

A study of the decisions will reveal that the immunities conferred on "seller’s talk” have been greatly exaggerated. … Whatever the earlier doctrine may have been, it is now clearly established in this Commonwealth that one who has been induced to enter into a contract in reliance upon a false though innocent representation of a material

Board of Trustees of the Sea Grass Village Condominium v. Bergquist

2009 Mass. App. Div. 132 · Massachusetts District Court, Appellate Division · Jun 25, 2009

. *133 Sea Grass Village was established by a Master Deed and a Declaration of Trust recorded on October 7, 2002. … The attorney’s fee provision here lacks the qualifier “reasonable” and any such qualifier as “any” or “all.”

Sampson v. Shaw's Supermarket, Inc.

2000 Mass. App. Div. 106 · Massachusetts District Court, Appellate Division · Apr 18, 2000

defendant, and plaintiff has appealed assigning five potential errors of law three of which arise from the trial judge’s refusal to allow the plaintiff to testify as to the physical configuration of receiving areas in other establishments … Welch in support of his contention that *107 he should have been allowed to testify as to the configuration of defendant’s receiving area; however, in Edgarton the excluded evidence was offered through a qualified expert.

Gianely v. Travelers Insurance Companies

1995 Mass. App. Div. 155 · Massachusetts District Court, Appellate Division · Nov 13, 1995

Later, as the plaintiff was leaving that establishment, he crossed the street and was struck by an uninsured automobile. … However, additional evidence is clearly required to assess the significance of the *158 factors relied upon by the parties.

Gott v. Robert E. Anderson, Inc.

1990 Mass. App. Div. 73 · Massachusetts District Court, Appellate Division · May 16, 1990

Here, Gott’s failure to establish either the duty owed by Anderson, or Anderson’s breach of the duty, by expert testimony from a qualified surveyor, is fatal to his case. … This allegation constitutes, in part, a claim for breach of contract, and it was upon such contract claim that the trial court clearly based its decision in the plaintiffs favor.

Wolk v. Teich

23 Mass. App. Dec. 5 · Massachusetts District Court, Appellate Division · Dec 20, 1961

Denied. 1 find that the plaintiff is entitled to recover, by reason of the fact that he was ready, able and willing, and eminently qualified to complete the work, called for in his contract, but was prevented from doing so … The trial judge, by his “Findings of Fact”, clearly established the right of the plaintiff to sue either on the special contract or on the account annexed. Searls v. Doring, 275 Mass. 403 , 407 and Beaudoin v.

Mister Jay Fashions, Inc. v. BayBank Middlesex, N.A.

1981 Mass. App. Div. 247 · Massachusetts District Court, Appellate Division · Dec 22, 1981

qualifies as a “letter of credit” under G.L.c. 106, § 5-103. 3. … The evidence clearly states that Blatchford was an employee of the defendant Bank with full authority to issue letters of credit.