Case law

Rudy v. Marchilli

District Court, D. Massachusetts · Dec 17, 2018

Rudy may not obtain federal habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d) unless he can show that the SJC’s decision “was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined … When making the “unreasonable application” inquiry, federal habeas courts must determine “whether the state court’s application of clearly established federal law was objectively unreasonable.” Id. at 409.

Rogers v. Commissioner of the Department of Mental Health

390 Mass. 489 · Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · Nov 29, 1983

The statutes and regulations are clearly intended to set forth the exclusive means for use of chemical restraints, which include antipsychotic drugs. Use of the word “only” in G. … [when the doctor makes] the effort to establish a strong therapeutic alliance.” Id. 19 Economic considerations may also create conflicts between doctors and patients.

Sanchez v. Silva

District Court, D. Massachusetts · Nov 15, 2018

Ct. 429, 431 (2014) (emphasizing that “circuit precedent does not constitute ‘clearly established Federal law’” for these purposes); see also Bebo v. Medeiros, 906 F.3d 129 (1st Cir. 2018). … When making the “unreasonable application” inquiry, federal habeas courts must determine “whether the state court’s application of clearly established federal law was objectively unreasonable.” Id. at 409.

Reilly v. Hopedale

Massachusetts Appeals Court · Mar 7, 2023

The judge reasoned that, 13Through its request for declaratory judgment, the town sought to establish that the July 9 notice of intent complied with G. … landowners can agree to preserve and maintain forest land in order to receive advantageous tax treatment, in exchange for which the town receives certain rights should the land be transferred or otherwise fail to continue to qualify

Medbury v. Watson

47 Mass. 246 · Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · Sep 15, 1843

The present case is clearly distinguishable from that, and is supported by the authority of Patten v. Gurney, 17 Mass. 182 . … But even this is qualified by one of .the more ancient decisions : As where a vendor had falsely affirmed as to the amount for which the estate rented, and had induced a person to give a higher price for the estate in consequence

Hochberg v. Proctor

441 Mass. 403 · Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · Apr 6, 2004

conclusively define the phrase “bearing the name” in the context of a will or trust instrument. 12 Guidance may be found, however, in decisions of this court using that language to refer to circumstances where a testator clearly … Because there was no way to predict in 1949, nor was it certain to be known, within the applicable perpetuities period, which of the above contingent beneficiaries, if indeed any at all, would ultimately qualify to take the

Wollman v. Massachusetts General Hospital Inc.

District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jul 29, 2020

immunity provided by this subdivision.” … Here, the Report was sent to the Chair of the Board under an email clearly marked privileged and the Report is clearly marked privileged. There is no evidence or allegation that Ms.

Sycamore Land Corp. v. Thompson

1 Mass. L. Rptr. 489 · Massachusetts Superior Court · Jan 28, 1994

A deleading process, undertaken by qualified contractors Sycamore hired and paid, thereafter ensued. It is unclear when the deleading process began but the process clearly was completed in January of 1992. … The proposition that the Board has authority to make determinations concerning violations of the State Sanitary Code and to enter abatement orders based on those violations was established by the reasoning of this Court in

Cote-Whitacre v. Department of Public Health

446 Mass. 350 · Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · Mar 30, 2006

The plaintiff couples make no claim that they are a suspect class entitled to heightened scrutiny, except insofar as they are nonresidents entitled to the protections of the privileges and immunities clause provisions of … There is no dispute that the list of impediments issued during the relevant time clearly indicated that the couples were prohibited *393 from marrying under the laws of their home State (New York and Rhode Island), and thus

GTE Government Systems Corp. v. Rackemann, Sawyer & Brewster, P.C.

5 Mass. L. Rptr. 634 · Massachusetts Superior Court · Apr 4, 1996

Rackemann contends that judgment n.o.v. is warranted because this court’s instruction to the jury on the subject was clearly wrong. … “Establishing the date of breach or demand!, however,] is a determination for the trier of fact, and, where trial has proceeded before a jury, neither the judge nor an appellate court can make such a determination.”

Quiles v. Sikorsky Aircraft

84 F. Supp. 2d 154 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Sep 8, 1999

Plaintiff also asserts that Potts’ statements are inadmissible because he has not been qualified as an expert to give an opinion as to the source of the cracking. … I find that defendants have established all three Boyle requirements.

Ding v. Payzant

17 Mass. L. Rptr. 656 · Massachusetts Superior Court · May 20, 2004

Both students passed the qualifying examination, and received invitations for admission on the condition that they establish residency in Boston by July 31, 2003. … The “he” in the statutory phrase “where he actually resides” is clearly the student, not his or her parents, guardians, or anyone else.

Softub, Inc. v. Mundial, Inc.

53 F. Supp. 3d 235 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Sep 30, 2014

a contract for sale although the writings of the parties do not otherwise establish a contract. … First, the witness must be shown to be sufficiently qualified by “knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education.” Fed.R.Evid. 702.

Lamare v. Commonwealth

11 Mass. L. Rptr. 442 · Massachusetts Superior Court · Feb 18, 2000

M.G.L.c. 258 provides immunity from personal liability for public employees in the scope of their employment. A public employer, however, can be held responsible for the actions of a public employee. … The circumstances in the firefighter hypothetical clearly and fairly demonstrate that the action would be taken as soon as possible. The present case can be analogized to this hypothetical. Ms.

A.S.R. v. A.K.A.

Massachusetts Appeals Court · Sep 22, 2017

"Under this definition [of harassment], a plaintiff can establish the need for a harassment prevention order in either of two ways that largely overlap. … The statute specifies that conduct or acts qualifying as criminal harassment under its terms 'shall include, but not be limited to, conduct or acts conducted by mail.' Id."

ADOPTION OF TONI (And Two Companion Cases).

Massachusetts Appeals Court · Mar 20, 2025

The mother argues that the judge abused his discretion by qualifying what she described as an undisclosed expert witness who testified for the department. … The mother challenges multiple findings and conclusions as clearly erroneous and argues that the ensuing conclusion that she is unfit was not supported by clear and convincing evidence.

Southern States Police Benevolent Ass'n v. First Choice Armor & Equipment, Inc.

241 F.R.D. 85 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Mar 9, 2007

The additional Named Plaintiffs, Ohio state troopers Dennis Wilcox and George King and the Lowell, Massachusetts Police Department, clearly meet the typicality requirements. … Specifically, it requires a demonstration that 1) there exists no conflict between the interests of the Named Plaintiffs and the class members and 2) counsel chosen by the Named Plaintiffs are qualified and able to litigate

United States v. Arnone

973 F. Supp. 206 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jul 15, 1997

Bribes clearly involve a quid pro quo exchange. United States v. Mariano, 983 F.2d 1150, 1159 (1st Cir.1993). Kickbacks according to the defendants, also require some form of quid pro quo exchange. United States v. … One example from the current guideline may be instructive: ... if a bank officer agreed to the offer of a $25,000 bribe to approve a $250,000 loan under terms for which the applicant would not otherwise qualify, the court

RLI Insurance v. General Star Indemnity Co.

997 F. Supp. 140 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Feb 25, 1998

February 1994, while the Gorham claim that is the subject of this litigation was pending and yet to be settled, many unresolved issues of Massachusetts law, including issues noted but not decided in Abrams , were firmly and clearly … Each of these witnesses was, in the court’s view, highly qualified and professional.

Squeri v. Mount Ida College

District Court, D. Massachusetts · May 24, 2019

“Generally, whether an intrusion qualifies as unreasonable, as well as either substantial or serious, presents a question 4 Although plaintiffs also allege that this disclosure violated the Family Educational Rights … Here, plaintiffs’ allegations fail to establish that the disclosure of their records to UMass Dartmouth was unreasonable as a matter of law.