Case law

Commonwealth v. Tarrant

367 Mass. 411 · Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · Apr 15, 1975

rule on the issue, it seems apparent that the motion for a directed verdict, was also properly denied because the indictment *414 alleged that the defendant was armed with both a knife and a dog, and there was evidence to establish … We apply the same analysis here. 3 However, we agree with the defendant that where it appears that the instrumentality is not in its ordinary use designed to produce death or serious bodily injury, therefore qualifying as

Mendoza v. Licensing Board

444 Mass. 188 · Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · May 11, 2005

Glen Theatre, Inc., 501 U.S. 560 (1991) (describing why nude and erotic dancing qualify as “expression” with references to historical and cultural sources). … The trial judge correctly ruled that Mendoza was a “prevailing party” and thus qualified for a discretionary award of attorney’s fees. 5. Conclusion.

Richards Ex Rel. Richards v. Thurston

304 F. Supp. 449 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Oct 6, 1969

Arguably, uniformity may have some substantive merit in such specialized training establishments where individual liberty may need to be weighed against other rational, legitimate objects of a peculiar applicability. … What the case clearly pointed out was that the principal had issued an ad hominem order based solely on what the lawyers would call his ipse dixit.

Commonwealth v. Tevlin

433 Mass. 305 · Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · Jan 30, 2001

We reject the defendant’s claim that there was insufficient evidence to establish that his sneakers had been employed as a dangerous weapon. … If so, the sister-in-law’s testimony, admitted without objection to its hearsay aspect, established the degree of force.

Norris v. Murphy

287 F. Supp. 2d 111 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Oct 21, 2003

It is undisputed in this case that under federal law, Norris qualifies as a prevailing party despite having been awarded only nominal damages. … With the applicable rates established, the Court now turns to a review of the number of hours expended.

Angell v. Springfield Home for Aged Women

157 Mass. 241 · Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · Oct 20, 1892

Margaret was appointed administratrix of the estate of Justin on May 7, 1890, but never qualified. … The gift of the dividends and income of the shares to that amount was clearly intended as an absolute gift of the shares; Chase v.

Commonwealth v. Ortiz

393 Mass. 523 · Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · Dec 17, 1984

Figueroa was granted immunity at the request of the Commonwealth, but ultimately testified for the defense. … Although prior reported testimony may qualify as an exception to the hearsay rule, Commonwealth v.

South Boston Betterment Trust v. Boston Redevelopment Authority

15 Mass. L. Rptr. 87 · Massachusetts Superior Court · Sep 4, 2001

About a year later, the SBBT was established, and its trustees were appointed. Three of those trustees were appointed by the Mayor. … If those facts were to be a part of the analysis, the motions would be denied because many, if not most, clearly are in dispute.

United States v. Doe

332 F. Supp. 930 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Oct 4, 1971

Such institutional employees clearly have less impact upon legislation than personal staff members entrusted by the legislator himself with sensitive and confidential duties. … Brandhove, supra, the related doctrine of legislative immunity is applicable, though not absolutely, to officers and employees of legislative bodies. Dombrowski v.

Draghetti v. Chmielewski

416 Mass. 808 · Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · Jan 26, 1994

Chmielewski is not immune from liability-dimply because the statements were not direct quotations. … Last, Chmielewski asserts that he and the citizens who read the Union-News share a “common interest” in the communication which entitles him to a qualified privilege.

Goldman

331 Mass. 647 · Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · Sep 27, 1954

If that were the test of belonging to a religious faith it is feared that few could qualify for any faith. The petitioners are of the Jewish faith and intend to bring up the twins in that faith. … It is contended that § 5B is unconstitutional as a law “respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” contrary to the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, and as

Simches v. Simches

423 Mass. 683 · Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · Nov 6, 1996

I In 1992, the plaintiff established a qualified personal resi *684 dence trust (QPR trust) pursuant to § 2702 of the Internal Revenue Code (1994) (I.R.C.), and transferred her Osterville vacation property into that trust … It is firmly established that considering tax implications is proper when inferring intent. Berman, supra at 511 n.6. Pastan v. Pastan, 378 Mass. 148, 155 (1979).

Yourga v. Trustees of the Smith Vocational and Agricultural High School

District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jul 27, 2020

“A government official sued under § 1983 is entitled to qualified immunity unless the official violated a statutory or constitutional right that was clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct.” … Courts assessing the applicability of qualified immunity engage in a two-step inquiry. Hunt v. Massi, 773 F.3d 361, 367 (1st Cir. 2014).

Connors v. Annino

460 Mass. 790 · Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · Oct 26, 2011

For purposes of § 8, the issuance of a building permit qualifies as an “order or decision of the inspector of buildings, or other administrative official,” see Gallivan, 71 Mass. App. … second paragraph of § 7, with its lengthy description of what is to happen when an enforcement action seeks to remove a structure already built pursuant to an issued building permit, also supports this view, focusing, as it clearly

Rooney v. Samuelson

1985 Mass. App. Div. 146 · Massachusetts District Court, Appellate Division · Jul 29, 1985

All costs which attended such vacating were clearly unrelated to the defendant’s breach. … It is well established that parties may properly agree to restrict to a specific figure those damages which may be recovered in the event of breach. See Daley v. J. F.

Samboy v. United States

738 F. Supp. 2d 190 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Aug 3, 2010

As noted, the government clearly presented enough evidence for the Court to have found, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the substance at issue was indeed crack cocaine and to have sentenced Samboy accordingly. … With respect to his first claim, Samboy argues that DEA Agent Roberto and Auburn Police Officer McGinnis were not qualified to testify as experts.

Oxford Immunotec Ltd. v. Qiagen, Inc.

271 F. Supp. 3d 358 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Sep 26, 2017

T cells, cells that’ mediate immune responses in the body, become “antigen-experienced” after they encounter a harmful peptide. … Once activated, the T cells release so-called cytokines, such as IFN-y, which act as chemical messengers in order to elicit a, full immune response.

Demarest v. Athol/Orange Community Television, Inc.

188 F. Supp. 2d 82 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Feb 28, 2002

The only motive AOTV articulated in support of this policy lacked any sound basis and clearly established that the provision is not aimed at “an extremely important problem.” … See Bill Johnson’s Restaurants, 461 U.S. at 743, 103 S.Ct. 2161 ("Just as false statements are not immunized by the First Amendment right to freedom of speech, baseless litigation is not immunized by the First Amendment right

O'Brien v. Massachusetts Institute of Technology

82 Mass. App. Ct. 905 · Massachusetts Appeals Court · Sep 25, 2012

First, there clearly is evidence that O’Brien’s chronic pain constitutes a physical impairment. … MIT did not argue, and the motion judge did not reach the question, whether O’Brien could make out the second element of his prima facie case, establishing that he is a qualified handicapped person.

Cox v. Massachusetts Department of Correction, et.al.

District Court, D. Massachusetts · Mar 31, 2018

To succeed on a claim under Title II of the ADA, a plaintiff must establish “(1) that he is a qualified individual with a disability; (2) that he was either excluded from participation in or denied the benefits of some … There is, accordingly, insufficient evidence to establish an Eighth Amendment violation.