Case law

Rubin v. Murray

79 Mass. App. Ct. 64 · Massachusetts Appeals Court · Mar 16, 2011

As such, its resolution is subject to review under the clearly erroneous standard. See generally Demoulas v. … Gordon was qualified as an expert, without objection, on the subject of fair owner compensation in closely held businesses.

American Paper Recycling Corp. v. Ihc Corp.

775 F. Supp. 2d 322 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Apr 7, 2011

Track, 989 F.2d at 545 , citing Neofotistos, 341 Mass. at 689 , 171 N.E.2d 865 . 8 Ivy clearly stated its reasons for selling its assets and ceasing to do business. … To establish a claim under Chapter 93A, APR must demonstrate an unfair or deceptive practice that falls “ ‘within at least the penumbra of some common-law, statutory, or other established concept of unfairness.’ ” Lambert

Addison Automatics, Inc. v. Netherlands Insurance

32 Mass. L. Rptr. 715 · Massachusetts Superior Court · Aug 17, 2015

Here, Netherlands and Excelsior clearly had fairly debatable reasons for disclaiming coverage under their policies with Precision. … Saris, 781 F.3d 1245, 1252 (11th Cir. 2015), the law creates a private right of action and establishes statutory damages for violations thereof, 47 U.S.C. §227 (b)(3).

Peterson v. The Lincoln National Life Insurance Company

District Court, D. Massachusetts · Apr 4, 2025

Second and third, it was established by an employer -- namely NDHCCI. … Therefore, it follows that an employee of a church-affiliated non-profit qualifies as an “employee of a church . . .”

COMMONWEALTH v. HELLEN KIAGO (and nine companion cases ).

101 Mass. App. Ct. 717 · Massachusetts Appeals Court · Sep 20, 2022

The defendants have not shown how the judge's findings with respect to the reliability issues were clearly erroneous, see Commonwealth v. … I don't consider it to be inflammatory or even remotely as accusatory as [the defendants are] characterizing it in this hearing, and I think it is clearly relevant to what Ms.

The Liverpool Packet

15 F. Cas. 641 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts · Oct 15, 1813

Suppose, in the present case, (and I mean only a supposition, and not any imputation upon the parties) the inquiry had been made, and the cambrics and dry goods, upon examination, had turned out to be clearly of British manufacture … illegal character, unless it be carried on expressly for British account, or *646 shipped under British contract, or destined for British use, or voluntarily incorporated into British service by licenses, which give the immunity

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission v. Silkman

177 F. Supp. 3d 683 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Apr 11, 2016

Lincoln Compl. ¶¶ 27-28. 2 After the initial baseline consumption level is established, it is not left static. … Thus, FERC’s description of the DALRP rules represents only its conclusions on how a baseline should have been established.”

Boston Gas Co. v. Department of Public Utilities

368 Mass. 780 · Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · Oct 29, 1975

However, it was established at the rate hearings that approximately 36.5% of the SNG plant’s production served the Northern Division. … L. c. 25, § 5. 20 A person’s intervention before the department may qualify him as a “party” (see Save the Bay, Inc. v. Department of Pub.

In re Nexium (Esomeprazole) Antitrust Litigation

42 F. Supp. 3d 231 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Sep 4, 2014

But when the concessions are contingent on the actions of others, they are not so clearly discrete. … Eaton Corp., 646 F.Supp.2d 663, 667 (D.Del.2009) (holding that experts looking at but-for worlds must qualify and discuss data in support of conclusions).

Com. of Mass. v. Mosbacher

785 F. Supp. 230 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Mar 13, 1992

But evaluation of consonance with the Constitution is the kind of task which is clearly meant for judicial determination. Marbury v. … Congress has delegated to the Secretary of Commerce and the Bureau of the Census the authority to establish those rules.

Acadia Ins. Co. v. Peerless Ins. Co.

679 F. Supp. 2d 229 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jan 21, 2010

recovery outside the policy’s coverage. 55 To determine the scope of coverage the court begins by comparing the policy language with the facts alleged in the complaint. 56 If the complaint in the underlying action does not clearly … Rather, Plaintiff would have this court use the extrinsic facts in Attorney Rehnborg’s letter as independent predicates establishing a duty to defend.

Commonwealth v. Daye

411 Mass. 719 · Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · Jan 29, 1992

We cannot say on this record that “the substantial rights of [the defendants] are clearly shown to have been prejudiced.” Commonwealth v. Fuller, 399 Mass. 678, 684 (1987). … jury, the defendants objected to the judge’s instruction relating to the credibility of a witness and requested that the judge instruct the jury that they could not reach their verdict on the uncorroborated testimony of an immunized

World Gym, Inc. v. Baker

District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jul 24, 2020

Plaintiffs “bear[] the burden of establishing that these four factors weigh in [their] favor.” Esso Standard Oil Co. (P.R.) v. … As to the second consideration, Plaintiffs cannot establish a “reasonable expectation” or “demonstrated probability,” Am.

Commonwealth v. Lang

473 Mass. 1 · Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · Oct 1, 2015

Because we have recognized that "a defendant's legal counsel is uniquely qualified to assess the nuances that attend the development of the trial strategy," counsel reasonably may decline to accept the advice of a retained … The defendant has offered no evidence indicating that he would have agreed to present a lack of criminal responsibility defense at the time of the original trial, and has clearly asserted that he would not present the

Reddicks v. Alves

District Court, D. Massachusetts · Dec 4, 2024

Therefore, as no clearly established law exists on this issue, this Court again necessarily defers to the Appeals Court’s decision. … application of clearly established federal law.

Rivera v. Kelly

District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jan 22, 2025

The clause applies “if, and only if, it is so obvious that a clearly established rule applies to a given set of facts that there could be no ‘fairminded disagreement’ on the question … After the Court explained the necessity of a serious sentence, the Clerk clearly announced that sentence: THE CLERK: Judge, may the sentence be imposed?

Fazio v. Fazio

Massachusetts Appeals Court · Feb 24, 2017

See id. at 5-6 (denial of request for SCRA stay of child custody hearing affirmed where servicemember's request did not state when he would be available to appear and lacked statement from commanding officer establishing … The judge clearly possessed the power to issue temporary child support orders during the pendency of the divorce action. See G. L. c. 208, § 19; Diver v. Diver, 402 Mass. 599, 602 (1988).

Brown v. FL Roberts & Co., Inc.

419 F. Supp. 2d 7 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Mar 3, 2006

The record does not suggest that Plaintiff ever asked, or was qualified, to be transferred to this other division. 4 III. … Plaintiff has clearly met this requirement: he described his religious beliefs to his immediate supervisors, Fuller and Spears, and to the Vice President in charge of his division, Smith.

Trustees of Columbia University in the City of New York v. Roche Diagnostics GmbH

126 F. Supp. 2d 16 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Dec 11, 2000

They are to review that record, apply the established rules of claim construction to determine the scope of the invention and then design around it. Id. … The claims, it suggests, refer to “dominant selectable phenotypes” only in the context of processes utilizing amplification. 24 And in that setting, both mutant and wild-type host cells would qualify.

CSX Transportation, Inc. v. COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

District Court, D. Massachusetts · Aug 10, 2018

Railroad Unemployment Insurance Act Congress enacted the first version of the Railroad Unemployment Insurance Act in 1938 to establish a system of unemployment insurance … This Court disagrees with the conclusion of that court that the RUIA preemption provision “does not clearly define the type of sickness provisions RUIA preempts” which led that court to