Case law

Tomsic v. Pitocchelli (In Re Tri-Star Technologies Co.)

260 B.R. 319 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Massachusetts · Mar 30, 2001

(In re Morse Tool, Inc.), 148 B.R. 97, 131 (Bankr.D.Mass.1992) (trustee bears the burden of proving the existence of qualified unsecured creditor); Young v. Paramount Communications, Inc. … To the extent, therefore, that Pitoc-chelli attempted to assert any offsetting claim under § 548(c), he has failed to establish it.

Massachusetts Institute of Technology v. Department of Public Utilities

425 Mass. 856 · Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · Sep 18, 1997

The cogeneration facility satisfied all of the criteria for, and was designated, a qualifying cogeneration facility (qualifying facility or QF) under the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978 (PURPA), 16 U.S.C. § … These rates are clearly governed by 220 Code Mass. Regs. § 8.06. MIT does not appeal from these rates.

Jennison v. Hapgood

27 Mass. 77 · Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · Oct 15, 1830

He had no establishment in Vermont. … On the question of interest, the court in Vermont has clearly exceeded its jurisdiction.

Patchell v. Option One Mortgage Corp. (In Re Patchell)

336 B.R. 1 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Massachusetts · Jul 8, 2005

Defendants further argue that the loan is clearly not usurious. At this early stage, the pleadings must be viewed through the pro-plaintiff lens. … As to the alleged forgery of Attorney Conlin, this clearly is not a predicate act committed by the Defendants in this case.

In re a Care & Protection Summons

437 Mass. 224 · Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · Jun 26, 2002

We conclude that the department met its burden and that the judge’s findings are not clearly erroneous. See Custody of Eleanor, 414 Mass. 795, 799 (1993), and cases cited. … The law concerning recusal of a judge is well established: the decision to withdraw rests first within his sound discretion. Haddad v. Gonzalez, 410 Mass. 855, 862 (1991).

Easthampton Savings Bank v. City of Springfield

470 Mass. 284 · Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · Dec 19, 2014

The mediation ordinance establishes a program requiring mandatory mediation between mortgagors and mortgagees. … , § 9.  15 included in the OHMRPA.7 In the plaintiff's view, this overbreadth directly places the foreclosure ordinance squarely in conflict with a clearly

RFF Family Partnership, LP v. Burns & Levinson, LLP

465 Mass. 702 · Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · Jul 10, 2013

App. 1, 12-23 (2012) (where in-house counsel has no involvement in outside representation at issue and law firm is clearly established as client before in-firm communication occurs, communications with in-house counsel protected … only reference made to the privilege is in the context of a judge’s ability to exclude evidence “even if the evidence is not otherwise subject to exclusion because of the attorney-client privilege . . . or the work-product immunity

Appromed Corp. v. the Dehner Company, Inc.

Massachusetts Appeals Court · Mar 6, 2025

By rejecting the terms of ApproMed's proposed distributor agreement, Ketzler clearly signaled that he had not intended to be bound by their initial oral discussion, but instead, reserved committing to material terms until … Accordingly, a jury could not have reasonably concluded the plaintiff established 7 that the parties formed an oral contract that the defendant later breached.

Hall v. Williams

23 Mass. 232 · Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · Mar 20, 1828

diminution of entire respect for that eminent tribunal, but because we have found that further consideration has brought about a qualification ol the doctrine which seemed to have been definitively settled, ox that some qualifying … Briggs , we may well tea upon that as the true construction, if it is not the most clearly and explicitly overruled by the only tribunal whose authority ought to be submitted to, the Supreme Court of the United States.

In Re Acushnet River & New Bedford Harbor: Proceedings Re Alleged PCB Pollution

725 F. Supp. 1264 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Oct 27, 1989

Thus, the Supreme Judicial Court clearly rejected the commission of the wrongful act as the time the damage or injury takes place. … (c) If the answer to question (b) above is yes, what considerations ought this Court employ in determining which events qualify as “sudden”? 2.

Surrey v. Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Co.

384 Mass. 171 · Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · Jul 28, 1981

We are convinced that if the Legislature wanted to qualify the term “hit-and-run” to the narrower designation of physical contact, it would have inserted appropriate language to that effect. … Insurance Commissioner’s approval of the policy provision evinces the Legislature’s intent to incorporate a physical contact restriction, the Commissioner’s approval is “hardly persuasive where, as here, the endorsement so clearly

United States v. Minnesota Mining & Manufacturing Co.

92 F. Supp. 947 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Sep 20, 1950

Upon beginning business in 1929, the Export Company established its principal office in this country. … Canadian tariff changes and Empire preference schemes were threatening to cut into the profitableness if not the volume of this business. .Clearly the- economically advantageous course for defendants was to supply the Canadian

Licata v. GGNSC Malden Dexter, LLC

29 Mass. L. Rptr. 467 · Massachusetts Superior Court · Mar 14, 2012

Licata signed an Immunization Consent or Refusal and a health insurance benefits assignment form as a “Responsible Party.” … Apparent Authority Moreover, GGNSC has not established that Licata had apparent authority to execute an arbitration agreement on Rita’s behalf.

Washburn v. Gould

29 F. Cas. 312 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts · May 15, 1844

That the right of the original grantee to make a contract for the renewed right, clearly established his power to make a valid assignment of all his rights and privileges in the patent; for it was not possible, that congress … I think, too, that it was clearly established at the recent trial, that "Woodworth was the true and original inventor of the machine patented, and it was so found by the jury.

United States Ex Rel. Westmoreland v. Amgen, Inc.

812 F. Supp. 2d 39 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Sep 15, 2011

This clearly supports the validity of CMS’s inclusion of the Anti-Kickback Statute certification in the Provider Agreement “as a condition of payment.” … To qualify as a discount, the reduction in the amount a buyer is charged by the seller must be “based on an arms-length transaction,” 42 C.F.R. § 1001.952 (h)(5), and “not [made] through a joint-venture or collusive contract

FERLISI v. Galvin

787 F. Supp. 2d 111 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · May 26, 2011

Ferlisi is unable to ground his property interest in the Massachusetts civil service statutes because, as will be discussed below, it clearly does not vest provisional employees with such an interest. … That is to say, it was statutorily required that Ferlisi’s appointment be terminated within thirty days if at least three qualified individuals had passed the civil service examination and were eligible for and willing to

Zimmerman v. Bogoff

402 Mass. 650 · Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · Jun 22, 1988

The date of breach or demand is not sufficiently established as to either amount. … employee of Hispanic origin represent that CAL Abco was a “minority-owned small business” in order to qualify for certain special treatment in bidding on defense contracts.

Waters Corp. v. Millipore Corp.

2 F. Supp. 2d 66 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · May 23, 1997

In 1980, Millipore established the MRP as a defined benefit plan in order to supplement the MPP. (Id. at ¶ 5.) … Early Retirement Payments Section 4.2 of the MRP provides for Early Retirement Benefits to certain qualifying employees.

United States v. Green

389 F. Supp. 2d 29 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Sep 2, 2005

Summonses marked “undeliverable” are clearly in the former category. … Defendants argue that they have established a “substantial violation” of the Act, even if they have not established a constitutional violation, based on the failure of federal officials to supplement the available jury list

Commonwealth v. Beckett

373 Mass. 329 · Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · Sep 14, 1977

to commit larceny by false pretenses by misrepresenting to the Department of Public Welfare that her husband did not live with the defendant and their daughter, with the intended result that the defendant would appear to qualify … Here, clearly Paul Beckett’s statement was admissible against him as an admission and its introduction in evidence, accompanied by appropriate limiting instructions to the jury, did not violate the teaching of the Bruton