Case law

Commonwealth v. Smith

459 Mass. 538 · Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · Apr 26, 2011

The Commonwealth thus clearly had established the *547 existence of gang involvement in the drug business operating from Higgs’s apartment and the existence of substantial tensions between gang members relating to that business … the presentment and indictment of a grand jury, in case of high offences, is justly regarded as one of the securities to the innocent against hasty, malicious and oppressive public prosecutions, and as one of the ancient immunities

Miranda Pizarro v. McDonald

District Court, D. Massachusetts · Sep 25, 2024

Under that statute, the court must dismiss an action to the extent that, among other things, it fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted or seeks monetary damages from a party that is immune. … P. 10(c), exhibits are not required and the use of exhibits does not excuse Miranda-Pizarro of his responsibility to clearly and succinctly set forth the relevant allegations in the body of the second amended complaint

In re Cobb

445 Mass. 452 · Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · Dec 8, 2005

established when the respondent filed the claim, it was clear that a violation of a disciplinary rule did *461 not establish a basis for civil liability. … Judges are not above criticism or immune from review of their court room conduct. See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Sylvester, 388 Mass. 749, 750-752 (1983); Matter of Troy, 364 Mass. 15 (1973).

Welker v. Welker

325 Mass. 738 · Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · May 4, 1950

that precludes the petitioner here, a nonresident husband, from seeking relief against his wife who, since going through a marriage ceremony in 1947 with another man, has since been living with him in a home which he has established … After a full and fair trial of that issue the judge found that she had no domicil in Florida, and an examination of the evidence does not show that he was plainly wrong but demonstrates that he was clearly right.

Learning Express, Inc. v. Ray-Matt Enterprises, Inc.

74 F. Supp. 2d 79 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Nov 12, 1999

“[F]alse statements of opinion, of conditions to exist in the future, or of matters promissory in nature,” however, do not qualify as representations of material fact. See Yerid v. … Opp.Mem. at 12, the Counterclaim clearly attempts to state an independent private right of action for violation of the statute and the Court thus granted the motion to dismiss Count IV. 5 G.

Cooper v. Cooper

62 Mass. App. Ct. 130 · Massachusetts Appeals Court · Sep 24, 2004

She found the expert to be “highly qualified” and that he had provided the court with “invaluable expertise with respect to the quite complex financial aspects of this case.” … The findings, which describe, with respect to the three children, “worsening symptoms” and “physical and emotional difficulties because of the divorce,” are amply supported by the evidence and are not clearly erroneous.

Neverson v. Bissonnette

242 F. Supp. 2d 78 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Feb 4, 2003

The Appeals Court’s decision, therefore, was not contrary to clearly established federal law. … Despite Neverson’s various protestations, the Appeals Court’s decision was also not an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law.

Baynorth Realty Fund VI, L.P. v. Shoaf

27 Mass. L. Rptr. 502 · Massachusetts Superior Court · Oct 19, 2010

Elder Care Services, Inc., which presented a similar dispute, the First Circuit cited Pemstein for the proposition that a waiver of defenses in a guaranty “probably . . . could not immunize bad faith or fraud.” 82 F.3d at … The Court concludes that the evidence offered, taken as true, is insufficient to establish an oral modification. 8 3.Public Policy.

United States v. Iacaboni

592 F. Supp. 2d 216 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jan 8, 2009

District of Massachusetts, Judge George O’Toole concluded that “neither (a) a factual error as to the amount of restitution nor (b) a legal error in the manner of determining restitution is generally so ‘fundamental’ ... as to qualify … Though the criteria to be *222 satisfied in order to invoke this common law tool are not well established, it seems they would be at least as stringent as those identified for a writ of error coram nobis.

Doucette v. Kwiat (In Re Kwiat)

62 B.R. 818 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Massachusetts · Jun 30, 1986

. § 523 (a)(4), as established by disciplinary rules adopted by the state’s highest court. … Consequently, it was possible that the findings in the state court would not have qualified the plaintiff for summary judgment. In In re Longo, 37 B.R. 900 (Bankr.D.Mass.1984) a trial was held by the bankruptcy court.

United States v. Maling

746 F. Supp. 223 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · May 16, 1990

The proponent of a motion to suppress has the burden of establishing that his own fourth amendment rights have been violated. … These facts clearly establish a substantial basis for the judge’s finding of probable cause for the issuance of the warrant to search the trunk in this case.

Weinberg v. Colon

11 Mass. L. Rptr. 82 · Massachusetts Superior Court · Dec 3, 1999

It is clear that the Release permitted Colon to disclose its terms to “any public agency” and thus clearly contemplated that she may disclose the settlement to the Board. … Weinberg’s efforts to distinguish matters of private and public concern is unconvincing and are not supported by established legal precedent.

Hoxie v. Pacific Mutual Insurance

89 Mass. 211 · Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · Oct 15, 1863

In this somewhat distressing conflict of opinion among those best qualified to know what the law is or ought to be, on a matter of so much interest and importance to the commercial community, and in the absence of any authority … ; and to disregard and reject them in giving an interpretation to the provisions which they contain, would be clearly contrary to the plain intent and understanding of the parties.

Massachusetts v. Wampanoag Tribe of Gay Head (Aquinnah)

144 F. Supp. 3d 152 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Nov 13, 2015

First, IGRA confers upon qualifying tribes the “exclusive right to regulate gaming activity on Indian lands if the gaming activity is not specifically prohibited by Federal law.” 25 U.S.C. § 2701 (5). … On August 27, 2014, the Tribe moved to dismiss the AGHCA complaint on the grounds of sovereign immunity and failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

Jones v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts

District Court, D. Massachusetts · Feb 16, 2018

Immunity DOC Defendants have not sustained their burden that they are entitled to qualified immunity at this stage of the proceedings. … Absent any analysis, DOC Defendants have not met their burden establish qualified immunity at this stage of the proceedings.

ADOPTION OF CORA (And Three Companion Cases).

Massachusetts Appeals Court · Jun 22, 2026

Ct. 620, 626 (1998) 15 was the father's lack of familiarity with and inability to provide for these needs, "clearly establish parental unfitness." … Ct. 120, 125 (1984) (specialized needs of particular child combined with parental deficiencies "may clearly establish unfitness"). 2. Best interests of the children.

Hernandez v. Ashe

745 F. Supp. 2d 15 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Oct 13, 2010

As a result, *21 the court does not reach Defendants’ alternative qualified immunity argument. A. … Moreover, the video clearly and unequivocally shows that Devine attempted to move the cart before using his foot to force Plaintiff to release it, only applied force when Plaintiff failed to let go, used only the force necessary

Vizcaino v. United States

981 F. Supp. 2d 104 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Nov 8, 2013

Given this framework, the Court must find that the provisions in *109 § 851 were clearly intended to repeal habeas relief under § 2255. The Court starts with a reading of the plain language of the relevant provisions. … Even though the statute could fairly be considered ambiguous on this point 1 as the Supreme Court established in St.

Commonwealth v. Drumgold

423 Mass. 230 · Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · Jul 18, 1996

Such an examination clearly threatened to evoke incriminatory answers. … Also, Z’s remarks in reaction to being told that juror W was in favor of a mistrial do not qualify as an extraneous disturbing influence.

Doe v. Sex Offender Registry Board

14 Mass. L. Rptr. 111 · Massachusetts Superior Court · Nov 7, 2001

Although an agency’s interpretation of its own rules is entitled to great deference, the Board’s interpretations here are clearly erroneous. … Stranger is defined as any person who has not known the offender for more than 24 hours prior to the offense or who has not established any type of relationship.