Case law

Efficient Management Systems, Inc. v. Morin

4 Mass. L. Rptr. 426 · Massachusetts Superior Court · Oct 12, 1995

In addition, ERISA plans would have difficulty finding qualified and willing trustees as “the specter of personal liability” scares them away. General American Life Ins. Co. v. Castonguay, 984 F.2d at 1522 . … ERISA defines an employee welfare benefit plan as: [a]ny plan, fund or program... established or maintained by an employer, or by an employee organization, or both, to the extent that such a plan, fund or program was established

Dagan v. Jewish Community Housing for the Elderly

5 Mass. L. Rptr. 36 · Massachusetts Superior Court · Dec 15, 1995

Clearly, the Dagans’ idle on-call time was spent predominantly for their own benefit, not JCHE’s. … Here, the Dagans were employees at Golda Meir House, a housing complex devoted entirely to providing housing to the elderly at below-market prices by qualifying for subsidies from the federal government.

Shafer v. Contributory Retirement Appeal Board

20 Mass. L. Rptr. 517 · Massachusetts Superior Court · Jan 23, 2006

In addition, the member must establish the annual leased value of the vehicle and the percentage of the total use that was for personal purposes. … Additionally, the memorandum states that the personal use value of clearly marked fire and police vehicles is not subject to taxation if the employee is required to commute in the vehicle so that he/she can be on call outside

National Engineering Service Corp. v. Grogan

23 Mass. L. Rptr. 451 · Massachusetts Superior Court · Jan 29, 2008

Plaintiff NESC is a recruiting and staffing firm which recruits qualified engineering and computer skilled candidates and places them at companies throughout the United States. … In this industry, such Managed Service Providers clearly qualify as customers and accounts of staffing companies such as NESC and CCSI.

Purcell v. Sherrill

29 Mass. L. Rptr. 479 · Massachusetts Superior Court · Feb 27, 2012

On July 22, 2010, the Building Inspector denied Purcell’s Request for Enforcement, indicating the Lots qualified for grandfathering under G.L.c. 40A, §6. … Clearly, Purcell’s appeal to the Board was untimely and thus, the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to hear it. 7 By no means does the court render this decision lightly, especially where, at a glance, it appears likely

McNulty v. Kessler

3 Mass. L. Rptr. 457 · Massachusetts Superior Court · Apr 3, 1995

If the moving party establishes the absence of a triable issue, the party opposing the motion must respond and allege specific facts which would establish the existence of a genuine issue of material fact in order to defeat … To the extent that their actions were privileged under the common-law privileges discussed above, they also were immune from claims for intentional interference with contractual or advantageous relationships.

Feldman v. Aspen Technology, Inc.

22 Mass. L. Rptr. 341 · Massachusetts Superior Court · Mar 3, 2007

The second sentence thus qualifies the requirement of particularity for fraud cases contained in the first sentence, permitting a general statement of scienter to suffice. James W. Smith & Hiller B. … Whether Feldman can establish damages is a factual issue for resolution at a later time, but the allegation clearly meets the jurisdictional requirements of G.L.c. 212, §3.

Biogen Idec MA, Inc. v. Cahill

22 Mass. L. Rptr. 181 · Massachusetts Superior Court · Feb 27, 2007

The Treasurer has “a wide range of discretion in establishing the parameters of [his] authority pursuant to . . . enabling legislation.” . . . … Statutory interpretation is a quintessential judicial responsibility, to be undertaken using well-established guiding principles.

Arthur v. Doe

32 Mass. L. Rptr. 296 · Massachusetts Superior Court · Jul 31, 2014

Arthur claimed that his doctorate and law degrees made him more qualified. Dr. … relatedness prong even though the only contacts between one Colder defendant and forum were that his article was published within forum and legal injury occurred within forum; both in-forum publication and in-forum injury were clearly

Watts Water Technologies, Inc. v. Fireman's Fund Insurance

22 Mass. L. Rptr. 659 · Massachusetts Superior Court · Jul 11, 2007

The italicized “insured” is a defined term in the Policy, meaning “any person or organization qualifying as an insured in the ’’Persons Insured" provision of the applicable insurance coverage." Policy at 1. … If the insurer wishes to impose this limitation on its insureds, it may do so by clearly so stating in the insurance policy.

Finnegan v. Baker

32 Mass. L. Rptr. 455 · Massachusetts Superior Court · Apr 30, 2014

“This connection is established if the corporate powers were used or necessary for the commission of the alleged misconduct.” … They have not shown that the Special Master’s finding that to date, they have not done so, was clearly erroneous.

American States Insurance v. Kirsch

4 Mass. L. Rptr. 589 · Massachusetts Superior Court · Sep 15, 1995

The determination of whether American States must defend the insured parties involves a preliminary question: did the DEP’s correspondence qualify as a “suit” “seeking damages” and hence trigger a potential duty to defend … A type of coverable loss clearly fits within the allegations of the complaint; therefore the first part of the duty to defend test is satisfied.

Mizhir v. Conservation Commission of Winchendon

19 Mass. L. Rptr. 721 · Massachusetts Superior Court · Aug 30, 2005

The Conservation Commission and the Department of Environmental Qualify Engineering (DEQE) have jurisdiction over the use of wetlands. 4 Corcoran v. … The Commission determined: [T]hat sufficient protection for the wetlands on the property had not been shown on the plan since it was clearly showed propose excavation within 100 feet of the wetlands.

Commonwealth v. Colihan

2 Mass. Supp. 250 · Massachusetts Superior Court · Feb 20, 1981

Throughout the evening, the light in the defendant’s apartment was dim but objects in the apartment were clearly discernible. … Both Reiser and Alexander agree that Detective Brady is a qualified forensic hypnologist.

Gray v. Michael Stapleton Associates, Ltd.

22 Mass. L. Rptr. 480 · Massachusetts Superior Court · May 7, 2007

“Although whether a particular set of acts, in their factual setting, is unfair or deceptive is a question of fact, the boundaries of what may qualify for consideration as a [G.L.] c. 93A violation is a question of law.” … These torts clearly support a c. 93A claim, and contrary to MSA’s assertions, rise to the level of an unfair and deceptive trade practice under the statute.

T&D Video, Inc. v. Revere

3 Mass. L. Rptr. 427 · Massachusetts Superior Court · Dec 8, 1994

“Clearly . . . ‘supplemental’ materials cannot sustain regulations where there is no evidence in the pre-enactment legislative record.” 11126 Baltimore Blvd. v. … While Stringi states he briefed some City Councillors about the proposed Ordinances, this hardly qualifies as evidence of the City Councillors deliberations or its reasons for enactment.

Medmarc Casualty Insurance Company v. Harvard Bioscience, Inc. and Biostage, Inc.

Massachusetts Superior Court · May 18, 2022

And it defines an expanded access or named patient program to mean “any program that allows patients who do not qualify for clinical trials to access new medications [or medical devices] for treatment purposes” before they … What Medmarc did was to defend the underlying action for years, without any reservation of rights, which it presumably would not have done if the facts alleged in the underlying complaint did not clearly trigger Medmarc’s

Noveios Therapeutics, Inc. v. Kenmare Capital Partners, Ltd.

13 Mass. L. Rptr. 389 · Massachusetts Superior Court · Jun 29, 2001

Novellos was seeking capital to fund clinical trials of its first drug, which it described as “a chemically synthesized, biologically active compound . . . expected to capture a significant share of the . . . market for immune … Once the moving party establishes the absence of a triable issue, the party opposing the motion must respond and allege specific facts establishing the existence of a genuine issue of material fact.

Kelley v. CVS Pharmacy, Inc.

23 Mass. L. Rptr. 87 · Massachusetts Superior Court · Aug 24, 2007

CVS Pharmacy, 436 Mass. 316, 320 (2002) (a pharmacy “clearly has the duty to fill prescriptions correctly”). … Yet, the mailing list that CVS used here is different, because it derives from its prescription files, not from, for instance, the application its customers fill out to obtain a CVS card in order to qualify for advertised

Haas v. Spencer

30 Mass. L. Rptr. 623 · Massachusetts Superior Court · Dec 11, 2012

Cruz, the Massachusetts Superior Court determined that a prison official’s unauthorized opening of a prisoner’s privileged legal mail was “[s]uch an obvious violation of a clearly established right [that it] subjects [the … established right.” 1999 WL 35001126 (Super.Ct.