Case law

Guimond v. Russell

16 Mass. L. Rptr. 582 · Massachusetts Superior Court · Jul 8, 2003

Plaintiff contends that D’Amelio cannot establish hardship because he does not presently have a legal interest in the property. … It would clearly be a hardship and substantial expense for D’Amelio to enlarge and upgrade some Vs mile of Pilgrim Road.

Demoulas v. Demoulas

31 Mass. L. Rptr. 509 · Massachusetts Superior Court · Sep 25, 2013

Clearly Judge Lopez recognized the necessity of explicitly designating an objective, widely recognized standard, and knew how to identify such a standard. … Nor is such a prohibition inherent in the structure Judge Lopez established.

Guerra v. Easco Aluminum Corp.

12 Mass. L. Rptr. 490 · Massachusetts Superior Court · Nov 20, 2000

Unlike Bavuso , the danger posed by using the strapping here was not clearly open and obvious to preclude recovery on this count as a matter of law. … See Fernandes, supra, 400 Mass. at 34 (discussing the three elements necessary to establish that a warranty of fitness for a particular purpose existed). See also Hannon v.

Meade v. State Racing Commission

27 Mass. L. Rptr. 341 · Massachusetts Superior Court · Feb 9, 2010

Second, Meade alleges that the Commission’s experts were not qualified to offer expert opinions. … Shuster with respect to metabolic rate variability, the Commission stated that Meade was required to “clearly establish (i) Pleasing Amy’s own metabolic rate, (ii) the pH of the horse’s blood and urine, (iii) whether her

Commonwealth v. James B. Carver

Massachusetts Superior Court · Dec 31, 2024

A defendant establishes prejudice by establishing that the evidence "would probably have been a real factor in the jury's deliberations," such that its absence "casts real doubt on the justice of the conviction." … Franklin's conclusions qualify as newly discovered evidence. B. Dr.

Cronin v. O'Leary

13 Mass. L. Rptr. 405 · Massachusetts Superior Court · Aug 14, 2001

As the United States *407 Supreme Court declared, “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. … Corporations doing business with the federal government have for years been subject to various forms of debarment when they have engaged in wrongdoing, and it is established that debarment from federal procurement deprives

Page v. Frazier

2 Mass. Supp. 883 · Massachusetts Superior Court · Aug 4, 1981

By experience, the defendant is a qualified expert in the field of conveyancing and title examination. 3. … In view of the holding in Craig (supra), I note that the criteria set forth relative to reliance and foreseeability may provide a compromise of the bar of immunity establisheid by lack of privity in actions for. professional

Seidman v. Central Bancorp, Inc.

16 Mass. L. Rptr. 383 · Massachusetts Superior Court · Jun 30, 2003

The Legislature spoke clearly and without ambiguity in Sec. 32A. … The Shareholder Rights Agreement and Mootness The SRA established a two-step process to trigger the Rights created by it.

Commonwealth v. Easter

33 Mass. L. Rptr. 411 · Massachusetts Superior Court · May 27, 2016

In April of 2015, McKeon entered into a cooperation agreement with the Commonwealth in which she was granted immunity from prosecution in exchange for her testimony against Easter. … The doctrine clearly applies in cases where a defendant murders, threatens or intimidates a witness in an effort to procure that witness’s unavailability. Id. at 537 .

Rathore v. Kelly

15 Mass. L. Rptr. 210 · Massachusetts Superior Court · Sep 10, 2002

An employee must be able to point to some clearly defined and well-established public policy that is threatened by the employer’s action. Glaz v. Ralston Purina Co., 24 Mass.App.Ct. 386, 390 (1987). … However, Rathore does not point to any clearly defined and well-established public policy that was threatened by the employer’s action. See id.

Waste Stream Environmental, Inc. v. Lynn Water & Sewer Commission

15 Mass. L. Rptr. 723 · Massachusetts Superior Court · Jan 3, 2003

It clearly anticipated and estimated the volumes accurately, even though this was the Commission’s first time contracting in this manner. … Here, the facts clearly meet all of the elements of an output/requirements contract.

B&B Ventures, LLC v. Parcel C, LLC

28 Mass. L. Rptr. 361 · Massachusetts Superior Court · Jun 9, 2011

Once the moving party establishes the absence of a triable issue, the party opposing the motion must respond with evidence of specific facts establishing the existence of a genuine dispute. Pederson, 404 Mass. at 17 . … B&B Ventures argues that Section 4(E) of the purchase and sale agreement qualifies as an “other item for which provision is separately made,” such that it “continued in existence after the closing” and obligated the defendants

Stewart v. F.W. Woolworth Co.

1 Mass. L. Rptr. 14 · Massachusetts Superior Court · May 6, 1993

[A] cause-effect relationship need not be clearly established by animal or epidemiological studies before a doctor can testify that, in his opinion, such a relationship exists. … This was positive testimony from one qualified to express an opinion.

Commonwealth v. Archer

19 Mass. L. Rptr. 504 · Massachusetts Superior Court · May 13, 2005

Although the Commonwealth correctly notes that Apartment 22-D’s tenant did not fence in the backyard area, this factor is but one consideration in the determination of whether the shed’s foundation area qualifies as curtilage … Apartment 22-D’s shed is inches away from the back door, shares a common wall with the apartment, is clearly part of the apartment’s original construction, and is oriented to provide a level of privacy to the patio area.

Shephard v. Bay Windows, Inc.

16 Mass. L. Rptr. 726 · Massachusetts Superior Court · Sep 22, 2003

Her goal was to establish financial accountability within the organization by establishing a general ledger and an annual budget. … Once the moving party establishes the absence of a triable issue, the party opposing the motion must respond with evidence of specific facts establishing the existence of a genuine dispute. Pederson v.

Courtois v. Legal Seafoods, Inc.

17 Mass. L. Rptr. 296 · Massachusetts Superior Court · Feb 6, 2004

by a similarly or less qualified person who was at least five years younger. … The evidence clearly meets the first three elements of the primafacie case: the plaintiff was forty-two, he was terminated, and he was performing acceptably. The fourth element is more problematic.

PDC-El Paso Meriden, LLC v. Alstom Power, Inc.

14 Mass. L. Rptr. 643 · Massachusetts Superior Court · May 31, 2002

Contentions of the Movants Both ABB Ltd. and Alstom Power N.V. contend that they are not qualified to do business in Massachusetts, do not regularly do business in Massachusetts, do not solicit business in Massachusetts and … Alstom Power N.V. purposefully established minimum contacts in the Commonwealth. See Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 474-75 (1985).

Sivieri v. Commonwealth, Department of Transitional Assistance

16 Mass. L. Rptr. 531 · Massachusetts Superior Court · Jun 26, 2003

an acceptable level, and was terminated by the employer in favor of a similarly qualified individual). … Therefore, Sivieri’s claim of hostile work environment sexual harassment is not time-barred. 1 Sivieri’s allegation of retaliation against DTA is not as clearly related to her MCAD complaint of sex discrimination as is her

Legalbriefs, Inc. v. Foley & Lardner LLP

Massachusetts Superior Court · Feb 28, 2025

In November, 2023, LegalBriefs established a "relationship representing" Doe, a partner at another large law firm who had expressed an openness to leaving that firm if the right opportunity presented itself. … Thus, LegalBriefs was demanding a material change to the contract, something it clearly reorganized Foley enjoyed the prerogative to accept or reject in its discretion.

Abel v. Contributory Retirement Appeal Board

17 Mass. L. Rptr. 215 · Massachusetts Superior Court · Dec 17, 2003

Abel for her work as the Director of the Inter-generational Music Program qualifies as “regular compensation” as defined by ch. 32, §1. There is no question that Ms. … TRB emphatically states and quotes in its memorandum that “the statutory intent is clearly to exempt irregular payments of compensation from the retirement base.” Hallett v. CRAB, 431 Mass, 66, 70 (2000).