Case law

DiMare v. RealtyTrac, Inc.

714 F. Supp. 2d 199 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Mar 25, 2010

Accordingly, plaintiff cannot establish the elements of a claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress. C. … The third count, which is labeled "injunction,” is clearly a prayer for relief, not a theory of recovery. 2 . Available at RealtyTrac’s "About Us” web page, http://www.realtytrac.com/company/ backgrounder.html. 3 .

Flores-Powell v. Chadbourne

677 F. Supp. 2d 455 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jan 7, 2010

Morgan, 670 F.Supp.2d 116, 121-23 , 2009 WL 4049143, at *4-5 (D.Mass.2009) (collecting cases regarding futility and concluding that “the BIA has clearly and repeatedly upheld the denial of a bond hearing under the view that … In Tavares , the habeas claim was moot, a related civil rights claim was barred by sovereign immunity, and the petitioner conceded that he was subject to mandatory detention pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226 (c) because he was

Aero-Fastener, Inc. v. Sierracin Corp. (In Re Aero-Fastener, Inc.)

177 B.R. 120 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Massachusetts · Dec 30, 1994

Accordingly, Sierracin’s forbearance of going forward on its bulk attachment motion fails to qualify as contemporaneous “new value” for purposes of § 547(c)(1). … The Court finds that the exchange of goods contemplated between the parties under the Settlement Agreement was clearly supported by consideration as (1) there was clearly a bargained-for exchange between the parties, and

Optos, Inc. v. TOPCON MEDICAL SYSTEMS, INC.

777 F. Supp. 2d 217 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Mar 7, 2011

While California law, per section 16600, clearly invalidates non-competition clauses as a general matter, Edwards v. … This in-forum injury is clearly related to Optos’ tortious interference claim.

Hawley v. Preferred Mutual Insurance Co.

88 Mass. App. Ct. 360 · Massachusetts Appeals Court · Sep 16, 2015

"We accept the judge's findings in a bench trial unless they are clearly erroneous." Weiler v. PortfolioScope, Inc., 469 Mass. 75, 81 (2014), quoting from Makrigiannis v. … Ct. 617, 625 (2000) (citation omitted), that when we determine what qualifies as a reasonable amount of time for commencing a suit, we look at the "facts and circumstances of each particular case," the Hawleys argue that

Miller

71 Mass. App. Ct. 625 · Massachusetts Appeals Court · Apr 30, 2008

The jury were clearly instructed that “[t]he petitioner need not prove that he is no longer a sexually dangerous person.” … Both Kelso and Pierce are qualified examiners, as designated by G. L. c. 123A.

TalentBurst, Inc. v. Collabera, Inc.

567 F. Supp. 2d 261 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jul 25, 2008

(‘Where [plaintiff] has established that it had a non-competition agreement with [its former employee], and that the defendants ... solicited [the employee] to leave [the plaintiff] to accept employment with [the defendant … It is hard to see, however, how a desire to employ highly qualified individuals is an improper motive.

NewRiver, Inc. v. NEWKIRK PRODUCTS, INC.

674 F. Supp. 2d 320 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Dec 16, 2009

John Deere Co. of Kansas City, 383 U.S. 1, 17-18 , 86 S.Ct. 684 , 15 L.Ed.2d 545 (1966), the Supreme Court established the framework for determining obviousness under the section 103 analysis. … NewRiver asserts that its expert testimony was sufficient to establish infringement under the doctrine of equivalents. Although NewRiver’s expert, Dr.

Commonwealth v. Dabrieo

370 Mass. 728 · Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · Aug 3, 1976

There clearly was sufficient evidence for submission of the case to the jury on the issue of the defendant’s guilt. … The motion judge found that the period of seven months from approximately February, 1973, to August, 1973, was attributable to the Commonwealth and was due in large measure to a heavy caseload and shortage of qualified personnel

Wyse v. Summers

100 F. Supp. 2d 69 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jun 15, 2000

Clearly, at any point during this time Complainant could have entered the EEO counseling process. … Generally speaking, in a race discrimination claim this requires the plaintiff to establish that: (1) he was a member of a protected class; (2) he was subject to an adverse employment action; (3) he was qualified for the

Brasi Development Corp. v. Attorney General

456 Mass. 684 · Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · May 10, 2010

As is evident from the responses received by the university, a new building clearly was not required under the terms of the RFP. … A fully constructed facility would equally qualify for consideration under the RFP, as would a proposal to modify an existing structure. ...”

Nelson v. Anika Therapeutics, Inc.

28 Mass. L. Rptr. 613 · Massachusetts Superior Court · Aug 15, 2011

In response, the director of operations stated, in support of Nelson, “because she’s qualify control and it’s her job.” … A “narrow exception” to that rule is where the discharge is for reasons that violate clearly established public policy. Smith v. Mitre Corp., 949 F.Sup. 943, 948 (D.Mass. 1997), citing Flesner v.

Holmes v. Carpenter Training Center

District Court, D. Massachusetts · Apr 25, 2019

Consequently, a plaintiff who seeks to bring her suit in a federal forum bears the burden of establishing that the federal court has subject-matter jurisdiction. … If Holmes wishes to pursue this action, she must file an amended complaint that clearly identifies what each defendant did wrong and the legal claim against each party.

In the Matter of McKnight

406 Mass. 787 · Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · Mar 6, 1990

The court, citing the well-established rule that a judge cannot order a public agency to act in a particular manner unless there is but one avenue through which that agency can fulfil its legal obligations, concludes that … The court fails to show that these findings were clearly erroneous.

Commonwealth v. Mahnke

368 Mass. 662 · Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · Oct 7, 1975

As to the second statement, the court said of it that it was “clearly the result and the fruit of the first.” Id. at 605 . … It is all too easy, reading this record in retrospect, with control of one’s faculties and with time and capacity to think clearly, to point out one or another moment when the defendant might have escaped.

College-Town, Division of Interco, Inc. v. Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination

400 Mass. 156 · Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · Jun 3, 1987

Clearly, within the broad sweep of that language falls conduct which creates a sexually harassing work environment. 2. … The findings establish that the employer acted promptly on the plaintiff's complaints; action was commenced on the next business day.

Cambridge Street Realty, LLC v. Stewart

481 Mass. 121 · Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · Dec 20, 2018

Due to her low income, the tenant qualified to receive a Section 8 voucher administered by the Boston Housing Authority (BHA).3 The tenant and the landlord entered into a 3 "In the United States Department of … As discussed, a summary process eviction action is clearly a question at the core of the Housing Court statute and the relief that the court provides.

Tian v. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services

District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jan 3, 2025

in which a plaintiff seeks to proceed without prepayment of fees if the complaint is malicious, frivolous, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune … Mass. 2007) (Here, in the absence of a clearly established duty to act on a naturalization petition within a prescribed period of time, the court agrees with those of its sister courts that have held that [section 1361]

Martin v. Sullivan

23 Mass. L. Rptr. 592 · Massachusetts Superior Court · Jan 23, 2008

The defendants Daily and Smyth have moved for partial summary judgment, asserting that there is no basis on the established record for holding them liable with respect to the claims against the defendant Sullivan. … This intimidation clearly supports the plaintiffs position on this issue. Compare Koe v. Mercer, supra (parents of the plaintiff were not asked to “remain silent forever”).

Gilbert v. Marotta

4 Mass. L. Rptr. 633 · Massachusetts Superior Court · Jan 26, 1996

An area of a building accessible only to a minority of unit owners and used only by that same group can clearly qualify as a “limited common area.” Belson v. … Elevators and parking spaces used exclusively by one or more units can qualify as ’’limited common areas." Tosney v. Chelmsford Village Condominium Association, supra.