Case law

A.C. v. W.J.

Massachusetts Appeals Court · Aug 28, 2023

Ct. 532, 536 (2015). 5 A.C. testified that the caller from an unknown number not only identified herself as W.J., but also sounded as if she was her. 3 threat, if credited, 6 is clearly … This leaves us to consider the question at the heart of this appeal: whether acts of harassment directed at A.C. by third parties in these circumstances can be attributed to W.J. to establish a third qualifying act within

Commonwealth v. DeJesus

Massachusetts Appeals Court · Mar 1, 2021

The defendant moved for a required finding of not guilty on all counts at the close of the Commonwealth's case, arguing that the evidence was insufficient to allow the jury to find that the gun at issue qualified as a … Because the evidence was sufficient to establish the defendant's possession of the firearm at issue and defendant "carrie[d] [the firearm] on his person" has been eliminated. Commonwealth v. Duncan, 71 Mass. App.

Upshaw v. Murphy

District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jul 17, 2019

established federal law. … The trial court’s determination that the will was not testimonial was therefore not “contrary to . . . clearly established” Supreme Court precedent. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d).

Baker v. Goldman Sachs & Co.

656 F. Supp. 2d 226 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Sep 15, 2009

Moreover, the parties’ intent to benefit the third party must clearly appear in the *235 language of the contract. See, e.g., Consolidated Edison, Inc. v. … To maintain a claim under Chapter 93A, a plaintiff need not establish privity of contract, “ ‘so long as the parties are engaged in more than a minor or insignificant business relationship.’ ” Giuffrida v.

Espinosa Sr. v. Andrew C. Metcalf

District Court, D. Massachusetts · Dec 1, 2021

The amended complaint therefore also establishes a reasonable inference that Export is liable for violating Section 7.07(8) as to Junior. … Nothing in the amended complaint, however, indicates that Metcalf is a “[c]onstable” entitled to immunity. See generally D. 13.

Commonwealth v. H&R Block, Inc.

25 Mass. L. Rptr. 92 · Massachusetts Superior Court · Nov 25, 2008

This Court finds that the Attorney General has failed to establish the proof needed for a preliminary injunction of this scope. … He inflated his income by at least a factor of two to qualify for the loan, which he never could have afforded, since the annual payments exceeded his annual income.

Commonwealth v. Cook

419 Mass. 192 · Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · Dec 20, 1994

It is well established that the undisclosed intentions of law enforcement officers, in and of themselves, are not controlling in determining whether an individual has been arrested. Florida v. … He only remembered the letter “E” clearly.

In Re Lernout & Hauspie Securities Litigation

236 F. Supp. 2d 161 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jan 13, 2003

Novel or atypical methods should not provide immunity from the securities laws. 404 U.S. 6 , 11 n. 7, 92 S.Ct. 165 , 30 L.Ed.2d 128 (1971) (quoting A.T. Brod & Co. v. Perlow, 375 F.2d 393, 397 (2nd Cir. 1967)). … Plaintiffs argue that a scheme or course of business under Rule 10b-5(a) and (c) can include misleading financial statements that might also qualify as predicates for Rule 10b-5(b). Cf. Peil v.

Boylan v. Boston Sand & Gravel Co.

25 Mass. L. Rptr. 209 · Massachusetts Superior Court · Jan 23, 2009

Boston Sand argues that, since this was simply a curative ratification, Dan bears the burden of proving that “the terms of the transaction are so clearly outside the range of reasonableness that the directors . . . who authorized … He also relied heavily on Silverstein’s advice, since he did not consider himself qualified to resolve the differences between the two appraisals.

American Automobile Manufacturers Ass'n v. Commissioner, Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection

998 F. Supp. 10 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Oct 15, 1997

the enforcement procedure enforces is one within a state’s power to “adopt or attempt to enforce” under § 209(a) and § 177. 3 As the Court in the New York case noted, [wjhile § 177 clearly sets forth that individual States … Congress specifically delegated to the EPA the task of determining whether California’s emission standards qualify for a waiver of federal preemption under § 209(b). CAA § 209(b), 42 U.S.C. § 7543 (b).

Commonwealth v. Tran

460 Mass. 535 · Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · Sep 14, 2011

Clearly, the two records are created “for the administration of an entity’s affairs” and were not created in anticipation of use at trial. Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, supra at 2539 . See Michigan v. Bryant, 131 S. … By ruling as we do, we in no way indorse a practice of tolling the six-hour window established in Commonwealth v.

United States v. Ferrara

771 F. Supp. 1266 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Apr 15, 1991

Katz clearly established, however, that a warrant was required for a wiretap, even in the absence of a trespass because, as the Court then held, “the Fourth Amendment protects people not places.” 389 U.S. at 351 , 88 S.Ct … Accordingly, by 1968, Olmstead had been clearly overruled; the Supreme Court had established that the Fourth' Amendment applied to the interception of wire and oral communications; and it was clear that judicial warrants

Millis Public Schools v. M.P.

478 Mass. 767 · Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · Feb 6, 2018

agency, or other authorized or qualified private organization, subject to conditions and limitations; or (3) place the child in the custody of the Department of Children and Families. … They are not the dependent children who are clearly entitled to the full protection of the [J]uvenile [C]ourt.

Bridgeman v. District Attorney for the Suffolk District

476 Mass. 298 · Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · Jan 18, 2017

O'Laughlin, a qualified Spanish interpreter, who attested that "the Spanish translation contained within [the notice letter] is not accurate or clear." … In 3 Without clearly explaining why, the court strays from the analytical framework we adopted in Scott, relying instead on a self-selected set of "principles" explained in elaborate detail. Ante at .

Kane v. Winn

319 F. Supp. 2d 162 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · May 27, 2004

See generally Ann Woolhandler, Patterns of Official Immunity and Accountability, 37 Case W. Res. … He clearly has access to the medical records and the scientific and legal materials he needs to make his case.

Grafton and Upton R. Co. v. Town of Milford

417 F. Supp. 2d 171 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Feb 14, 2006

Palm Beach, 110 F.Supp.2d 1367 , 1378 n. 5 (S.D.Fla.2000) (“[A]s the agency with authority delegated from Congress to implement the *175 provisions of the ICCTA, the STB is uniquely qualified to determine whether state law … Grafton contends that the facts of Florida East Coast Railway distinguish it clearly from the facts in the present case and, therefore, the STB should not have relied on that holding.

Commonwealth v. Sacco

255 Mass. 369 · Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · May 12, 1926

The question was leading, therefore its admission was discretionary and clearly so at the stage of the trial when it was put. McLean v. Paine, 181 Mass. 287, 289 . No abuse of discretion is shown. 23. … Van Amburgh, who qualified as experts on the construction as well as the practical use of firearms, bullets, and different styles of cartridges.

Rothschild v. Cree, Inc.

711 F. Supp. 2d 173 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · May 13, 2010

The caveat is that any special definition given to a word must be clearly defined in the specification.”) (citation omitted). … As discussed, there is not enough evidence here to establish mischaracterizations of the articles, let alone blatant mischaracterizations to establish deceptive intent.

Commonwealth v. Henry

37 Mass. App. Ct. 429 · Massachusetts Appeals Court · Oct 7, 1994

The defendant argues that without the qualifying statement that he was “not guilty of anything,” the statement that he was afraid suggested that he was afraid because he was guilty. … Ct. 114, 116 (1986)(“[i]nherent in the right to present written requests for instructions and to *436 rulings thereon ... is the duty to bring the requests clearly to the judge’s attention”).

Commonwealth v. Lawton

82 Mass. App. Ct. 528 · Massachusetts Appeals Court · Oct 3, 2012

The Commonwealth’s evidence was more than sufficient to establish that the defendant, on at least three occasions, put his tongue inside the victim’s anus. … Counsel’s choice was clearly a matter of strategy and not manifestly unreasonable. See Commonwealth v. Martin, 427 Mass. 816, 822 (1998).