Case law

Lee v. President & Fellows of Harvard College

60 Mass. App. Ct. 836 · Massachusetts Appeals Court · Apr 20, 2004

For purposes of establishing a triable claim of age discrimination under G. … decision; and that the employer sought to replace him with a younger person who was no more qualified than the plaintiff.

Commonwealth v. a Juvenile

365 Mass. 421 · Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · Jun 12, 1974

By way of illustration, we think that the expert offered by the defendant in this case is amply qualified, 7 though we do not wish to be understood as saying that his credentials establish minimum standards for qualification … Other more pertinent remarks clearly indicate that the judge was personally convinced that the juvenile had established a very convincing case for the admission of polygraph results (“When conducted by competent polygraph

Sarni Original Dry Cleaners, Inc. v. Ronnie Lee Cooke

388 Mass. 611 · Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · Apr 4, 1983

Cooke has clearly established a prima facie case of racial discrimination. A member of a racial minority, he was qualified for, and worked successfully as, a delivery truck driver. … Clearly such a defense is available to an employer charged with racial discrimination.

Greater Lawrence Sanitary District v. Town of North Andover

14 Mass. L. Rptr. 571 · Massachusetts Superior Court · Jan 11, 2002

“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 … governmental function it is immune from local regulation.

Crown v. Kobrick Offshore Fund, Ltd.

85 Mass. App. Ct. 214 · Massachusetts Appeals Court · Apr 24, 2014

The judge clearly instructed the jury that actual knowledge was required. … In Marram /, 442 Mass, at 55, the court specifically rejected the defendants’ argument they were “immune from the plaintiff’s claims because . . .

City of Cambridge v. Commissioner of Public Welfare

357 Mass. 183 · Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · Apr 3, 1970

from liability in connection with clearly governmental functions such as the erection, maintenance and operation of schools, playgrounds and hospitals, and the furnishing of fire protection or fire fighting services. 6 The … That law was then only a part of a large body of statutes establishing a comprehensive municipally administered welfare program for furnishing aid and assistance to various segments of the inhabitants of the Commonwealth.

Orwat v. Maloney

360 F. Supp. 2d 146 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Feb 10, 2005

The Defendants further argue that Padula is protected from suit under *155 the doctrine of qualified immunity. … Qualified immunity applies when a government official’s “behavior does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of ‘which a reasonable person would have known.’ ” Brennan v.

McDonald v. City of Boston

District Court, D. Massachusetts · Sep 20, 2018

“[T]he second, ‘clearly established’ step of the qualified immunity analysis . . . in turn, has two aspects.” Maldonado v. Fontanes, 568 F.3d 263, 269 (1st Cir. 2009). … Despite finding the officer’s decision to obtain an arrest warrant based only on a name to be “troublesome,” the court granted him qualified immunity based on the second step of the analysis that it was not clearly established

Moncy v. Planning Board

50 Mass. App. Ct. 715 · Massachusetts Appeals Court · Jan 19, 2001

Bangs qualified to render an opinion on the legal status of Bates Lane. … “It is settled that whether a witness offered as an expert is qualified to give an opinion, rests very largely in the discretion of the presiding judge whose decision will not be reversed unless clearly erroneous as matter

Yarde v. Mici

District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jan 30, 2024

The new allegations 2 Qualified immunity protects public employees “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … To determine whether qualified immunity applies, the court must determine (1) whether the facts alleged or shown by the plaintiff make out a violation of a constitutional right, and (2) whether the right at issue was clearly

Stubbs v. Greater Fall River Regional Vocational School District

5 Mass. L. Rptr. 518 · Massachusetts Superior Court · Jun 21, 1996

The School District moves for summary judgment on the grounds that it is immune from liability for these claims under G.L.c. 258, § 10(b). … The focus of inquiry, therefore, is whether the School District’s exercise of its discretion qualifies as a “discretionary function” for purposes of § 10(b).

Walsh v. Town of Lakeville

431 F. Supp. 2d 134 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Apr 10, 2006

Moreover, neither Gibney nor Beneski is entitled to qualified immunity. … Based on the evidence presented by Walsh, this Court concludes that her right to use and enjoy her property was a clearly established right at the time Gibney and Beneski allegedly violated it.

Booker v. Massachusetts Department of Public Health

246 F.R.D. 387 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Oct 4, 2007

shall specify so much of it as is true and qualify or deny the remainder.” … Foley's deposition testimony establishes, despite Plaintiff’s attempts to characterize it otherwise, that Ms.

Dunham v. Lamphere

69 Mass. 268 · Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · Mar 15, 1855

answer, to this effect; that, whatever construction the court may give to his license, he will contend that the law of the' State, above cited, is unconstitutional, and that the legislature of the State have no right to qualify … I cite this authority the rather because it not only clearly announces the general principle, but illustrates it by the specific point in question.

Wiener v. Wampanoag Aquinnah Shellfish Hatchery Corp.

16 Mass. L. Rptr. 659 · Massachusetts Superior Court · Jun 13, 2003

The Tribal Ordinance created a Tribal Land Use Commission and established a permit process, but does not provide a mechanism for judicial review of permit decisions. … While this language clearly contemplates that federal recognition of the Tribe would impact its relationship vis avis the Town, this Court concludes that as an expression of waiver of sovereign immunity from suit, the reference

Hardiman v. United States

945 F. Supp. 2d 246 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · May 23, 2013

The Appeals Court concluded that “[t]he guidelines clearly leave it to the officers’ discretion to determine what is a reasonably foreseeable risk of harm to a specific third party. … A probation officer’s determination of a third-party risk and his/her decision regarding what exactly to disclose to local police when submitting a request for . a mental health evaluation clearly involve policy decisions

McMillan v. Massachusetts Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals

880 F. Supp. 900 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Mar 17, 1995

“[C]ase precedent clearly reflects that isolated and ambiguous statements ... ‘are too abstract, in addition to being irrelevant and prejudicial, to support a finding of [sex] discrimination.’ ” Gagne v. … Finally, the MSPCA argues that its tort liability is limited to $20,000 by the charitable immunity statute, G.L. c. 231 § 85K.

Vining v. Commonwealth

17 Mass. L. Rptr. 619 · Massachusetts Superior Court · Apr 28, 2004

On its face, the statutory language appears clearly to apply to the claim in issue here. Court officers are law enforcement officers, and the claim relates to the detention of goods by such officers. … The proposition that subject matter jurisdiction may be raised at any time is firmly established, and beyond dispute.

Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority v. Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination

450 Mass. 327 · Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · Jan 4, 2008

General Laws *340 c. 15 IB, § 4 (1A), clearly contemplates that employers will help employees shuffle shifts to allow observance of their Sabbath. … The establishment clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution reads, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion . . . .”

United States v. Hughes

44 F. Supp. 3d 169 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Sep 15, 2014

The primary locus of this obligation is Rule 702, which clearly contemplates some degree of regulation of the subjects and theories about which an expert may testify.” Daubert v. … Joiner, 522 U.S. 136, 142 , 118 S.Ct. 512 , 139 L.Ed.2d 508 (1997). *174 Clearly, Crowley’s testimony will be of assistance to the trier of fact in understanding the evidence.