Case law

Ritchie v. Treat

1983 Mass. App. Div. 148 · Massachusetts District Court, Appellate Division · May 2, 1983

The court went on to say that the short answer is that the hospital records are not “binding” but merely evidence which “may be contradicted, qualified, believed or disbelieved.” In Victum v. … In short, merely because evidence is admitted contrary to a long-established hearsay rule does not lead to the automatic conclusion that confrontation rights have been denied.

Consolidated Rail Corp. v. Commonwealth Fruit & Produce

1983 Mass. App. Div. 210 · Massachusetts District Court, Appellate Division · Jul 18, 1983

The testimony of the plaintiffs witness established that to the extent that the waybills and monthly audit statements incorporated information from other documents, the predecessor documents themselves qualified as reliable … The plaintiffs claim was based on demurrage charges established by applicable tariffs, which were before the trial judge.

Rourke v. Travelers Indemnity Co.

52 Mass. App. Dec. 187 · Massachusetts District Court, Appellate Division · Nov 19, 1973

The decedent as a relative and resident of his father’s home qualified as an insured under said coverage. The Liberty Policy issued on the Crouch car provided Coverage A, Divisions 1 and 2. Coverage A is compulsory. … This section by its terms clearly applies only to bodily injuries, sickness or disease arising out of the ownership, operation, maintenance or use of a motor vehicle within this Commonwealth.

McCarthy v. Quirk Nissan, Inc.

2009 Mass. App. Div. 159 · Massachusetts District Court, Appellate Division · Sep 15, 2009

The trial judge, on the record, clearly and definitively denied having any bias in the case. … The fee applicant bears the burden of documenting in detail the hours expended and of establishing the market rate ...

Flatte v. Carifio

1997 Mass. App. Div. 89 · Massachusetts District Court, Appellate Division · Jun 12, 1997

However, there is no suggestion that a magistrate or other person qualified to take an oath was present at the inspection. … Both parties have rights and liabilities established under common law principles of contract, tort, and property law.

Hannaford v. Carlson

48 Mass. App. Dec. 98 · Massachusetts District Court, Appellate Division · Apr 15, 1971

O’Hara, 266 Mass. 310 , *108 is clearly distinguishable from the case before us. … Once established as being admissible, the reported evidence clearly shows that the plaintiff merely wanted the defendants to hold title to the land in question as a favor to him to prevent its being taken by the Weymouth

George M. Zolotas & Bros. v. Santos

1987 Mass. App. Div. 22 · Massachusetts District Court, Appellate Division · Feb 19, 1987

Sawyer, 288 Mass. 402, 408 (1934), even if it had not been qualified by additional evidence that the defendant’s experts never examined the roof in question, or took any steps to enforce what they alleged to be a code violation … The short answer to the defendant’s contentions is that the court simply did not find the requisite facts in the defendant’s favor; and such factual findings as were made are not clearly erroneous and are thus beyond the

Kosanovich v. 80 Worcester Street Associates, LLC

2014 Mass. App. Div. 93 · Massachusetts District Court, Appellate Division · May 1, 2014

The trial court’s factual determination will only be disturbed if it is clearly erroneous. Id. … Only when a party’s breach “has an extortionate qualify that gives it the rancid flavor of unfairness,” does that breach give rise to a 93A violation. Id.

Gumley v. Gumley

59 Mass. App. Dec. 139 · Massachusetts District Court, Appellate Division · Dec 1, 1976

In May of 1971, the defendant bought the house in which he presently resides in Deerfield, Massachusetts, and established residence there immediately. … Among the various methods prescribed by the act for the service of process in proceedings against non-residents, it is provided that such service might be made by a duly qualified attorney, barrister or equivalent in such

Leasecomm Corp. v. Crockett

1998 Mass. App. Div. 6 · Massachusetts District Court, Appellate Division · Jan 13, 1998

Clearly, it could not be ruled that a guarantor is never a party to the principal contract or lease which is guaranteed. See, e.g., Chelsea Indus., Inc. v. Florence, 358 Mass. 50 , 55 n. 7 (1970). … find mention of such factors as simultaneity of execution, identity of subject matter and parties, cross referencing, and interdependency of provisions, [citation omitted] By these indicators, two documents ... can ... qualify

Hannaford v. Thorne

23 Mass. App. Dec. 139 · Massachusetts District Court, Appellate Division · Feb 28, 1962

(d) Section 1 of the Building By-Laws of Carlisle established and defined a public policy respecting the construction and remodelling of buildings that is in the public interest as well as in the interest of property-owners … The Court’s qualified granting of the plaintiff’s request for ruling No. 10 which was “granted with the qualification that this circumstance is to be considered with other circumstances in determining the plaintiff’s claim

Springfield Industries v. Broes Trucking Co.

1986 Mass. App. Div. 174 · Massachusetts District Court, Appellate Division · Dec 10, 1986

The defendant’s unsubstantiated assertions as to shipper negligence or acts of third persons clearly fall short of this requisite quantum of proof. … This finding properly rendered immaterial defendant’s request for ruling number 7; and there was no error in the trial court’s qualified allowance of this request

Akbarian v. Public Service Mutual Insurance

2004 Mass. App. Div. 87 · Massachusetts District Court, Appellate Division · Jun 3, 2004

Akbarian’s status as the trustee-owner of the building did not qualify him to introduce purely hearsay evidence as to the cost of the repairs at issue in this action. … There was clearly no abuse of that discretion in the denial of Akbarian’s motion to reopen, particularly in view of his failure to *91 demonstrate that his intended examination of Kobaly would have produced material, or even

First National Bank v. McGowan

1 Mass. App. Div. 203 · Massachusetts District Court, Appellate Division · Apr 21, 1936

It is well established law that the giving of a negotiable note for a pre-existing account or note, is presumed to be a discharge and extinguishment of the prior indebtedness, and the substitution for it of the new obligation … There was prejudicial error in denying the plaintiff’s requests seven and eight, and in the qualified allowance of the second request.

Prudential Loan Corp. v. Peraner

6 Mass. App. Div. 185 · Massachusetts District Court, Appellate Division · May 6, 1941

The issue, therefore, is clearly cut, which statute of limitations applies, the six year statute or the twenty year statute. … That case was one of the first which established the principle that an action can be brought on such a note by a holder in the name of the payee, but for the use of the indorsee.

Walker v. Board of Appeals of Harwich

1982 Mass. App. Div. 84 · Massachusetts District Court, Appellate Division · Mar 16, 1982

We recognize that the jurisdiction of the Appellate Division is established by G. … L. c.40A, § 17, are clearly equitable in character.

Parkhill v. Denaro

30 Mass. App. Dec. 95 · Massachusetts District Court, Appellate Division · Jul 1, 1964

Parkhill by the said party of the first part’ contained in the purchase and sale agreement are un. *101 qualified and the plaintiff earned his commission when the defendant executed said agreement. Richards v. … It is also not part of a broker’s duty to secure a binding, written contract between the principal and customer, unless the contract of authorization clearly requires the execution of a written, binding contract.

Carter v. Seto

2005 Mass. App. Div. 62 · Massachusetts District Court, Appellate Division · Jun 1, 2005

We need not decide on this appeal whether a garage door opener that allows access to a garage through which a tenant may enter an apartment would qualify as a key under §15B (1) (b) (iv). … R, Rule 52(c), findings of fact made upon conflicting evidence after a hearing or trial, which would be subject to the “clearly erroneous” standard of review on this appeal. See Makrigiannis v.

LoRusso v. Telfer

29 Mass. App. Dec. 47 · Massachusetts District Court, Appellate Division · Aug 4, 1964

Based on available information the mortgagor has not established sufficient stability of employment to warrant assumption of the insurance risk in connection with a long term mortgage transaction. … It would clearly be inequitable, under the circumstances, for defendant to retain the deposit.

Betty Gibson, Inc. v. Professional Advantage Financial Group, Inc.

1993 Mass. App. Div. 83 · Massachusetts District Court, Appellate Division · Apr 23, 1993

Coe advised Redler that based on the financial information he had submitted and subject to its verification, Redler would qualify for a loan of approximately $78,000.00. … His submission of bank statements and other financial documentation after April 25,1991 establishes his recognition of both the existence of, and his obligation to comply with, the Additional Conditions.