Case law

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.

World Gym, Inc. v. Baker DO NOT DOCKET IN THIS CASE - ALL ENTRIES ARE TO BE MADE IN THE LEAD CASE

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.

South Boston Allied War Veterans Council v. Zobel

830 F. Supp. 643 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Mar 11, 1993

Accordingly, clearly established principles of federalism and comity also require that this court not attempt to assert federal jurisdiction over this dispute. … This conclusion is not qualified by the fact that the decision from which the plaintiffs seek relief is preliminary in nature.

Miller v. Countrywide Bank, N.A.

571 F. Supp. 2d 251 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jul 30, 2008

Plaintiffs have identified the practice at issue: establishing a par rate keyed to objective indicators of creditworthiness while simultaneously authorizing additional charges keyed to factors unrelated to those criteria. … Plaintiffs Miller and Austin, in particular, alleges that she received a sub-prime loan even though she qualified for a prime-market rate. 7 .

Strasnick v. Board of Registration in Pharmacy

408 Mass. 654 · Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · Nov 26, 1990

It is not necessary under these circumstances for them to guess as to whether periods of over a year qualified as “a short time.” … It is clear that “[i]f an agency wishes to rely on a fact, that fact must be established by evidence in the record. . . .

GUY MADDALONE & Another v. BOARD OF APPEALS OF NANTUCKET & Another.

Massachusetts Appeals Court · Mar 9, 2026

"On appellate review, we defer to the factual findings of the trial judge unless they are clearly erroneous. … Based on our review of the record, we conclude that this finding was not clearly erroneous. Judgment affirmed.

AngioDynamics, Inc. v. Biolitec AG

946 F. Supp. 2d 205 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Apr 11, 2013

It is well established that “[f]ederal courts are empowered to issue civil contempt sanctions to ‘protect! … A judge’s ordinary efforts at courtroom administration — even a stern and short-tempered judge’s ordinary efforts at courtroom administration — remain immune.” Id.

Britell v. United States

204 F. Supp. 2d 182 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · May 29, 2002

CHAMPUS first notes that the Supreme Court has established clearly that justifications advanced in support of legislative classifications need not have been articulated at the time the legislation was first contemplated — … Since the distinctions being drawn here are not “invidious” ones, CHAMPUS argues, they do not trigger equal protection analysis, and therefore do not even qualify for rational basis review.

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.

Doucot v. IDS Scheer, Inc.

734 F. Supp. 2d 172 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Aug 10, 2010

“The ‘reasonably’ qualifier is important: there is no ambiguity if one of the two proffered meanings is unreasonable.” Id. (citing Murphy v. … Doucot’s claim for attorneys’ fees pursuant to Count IV of the Second Amendment Complain are clearly undercut.” (Docket Entry # 38).

Roach v. MIDDLETON AUTO SALES, INC.

623 F. Supp. 2d 139 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jun 8, 2009

They contend that Roach has not made an expert disclosure or provided a written report as required by the rule, 10 and has not demonstrated that Zaher is qualified. Id. Assets and CUNA are correct. … Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 , 106 S.Ct. 2548 , 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986) (explaining that summary judgment is properly entered against a party who “fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential

Robison v. Johnson

352 F. Supp. 848 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jan 4, 1973

As is clearly evident from these definitions, plaintiff and members of his class, who have performed alternate service under 50 U.S.C. App. § 456(j) and applicable regulations, do not qualify for veterans’ benefits. … For the Court held that the mandatory sex classification, established “merely to accomplish the elimination of hearings on the merits, is to make the very kind of arbitrary legislative choice forbidden by the Equal Protection

United States v. Jaber

362 F. Supp. 2d 365 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Mar 16, 2005

In Wilson, the court noted that the Guidelines are entitled to “heavy” weight, and that deviation from Guidelines ranges is only appropriate in unusual cases, for clearly identified and persuasive reasons. … Had the 57-71 months of the Guidelines range been a 60 month mandatory minimum, he would have qualified for safety valve relief.

Opinion of the Justices to the House of Representatives

411 Mass. 1201 · Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · Dec 5, 1991

Outside § 50 establishes that fund and provides for the development of plans to ensure self-sufficiency of the parks based on receipts. … This clearly would remove legislatively imposed restrictions on the appropriation and would alter the legislative purpose. Therefore, such disapproval would be ineffective.

Commonwealth v. Prunty

462 Mass. 295 · Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · May 23, 2012

Louisiana, 552 U.S. 472, 477 (2008) (trial court determination merits “great deference” and “must be sustained unless it is clearly erroneous”). … Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986) (Batson),] adds nothing new to the law already established in this Commonwealth.

In Re Celexa & Lexapro Marketing & Sales Practices Litigation

751 F. Supp. 2d 277 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Nov 10, 2010

In September, 2002, the FDA denied Forest’s application for a pediatric indication for Celexa, finding that the Lundbeck study “is a clearly negative study that provides no support for the efficacy of Celexa in pediatric … Applying the Camacho test, the Court finds that Wilcox has adequately pled facts establishing that Forest’s conduct was unfair.

In re Lernout & Hauspie Securities Litigation

222 F.R.D. 29 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · May 27, 2004

Clearly, this would have been a red flag for KMPG to try to find out more information, as any accounting firm would do when performing an audit and learning that information being given to it by the client was untrue. … In sum, the Court holds that KMPG has failed to meet its burden of establishing that the 15 e-mails were prepared in anticipation of litigation as that term has been construed in the Adlman case, a construction which has

Fyffe v. Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority

86 Mass. App. Ct. 457 · Massachusetts Appeals Court · Oct 6, 2014

(1) The trial was clearly focused solely on the issue of damages -- the stipulation to liability was emphasized to the jury throughout the trial. … (5) The defendants' tactical decision to call the plaintiff's Delta Airlines supervisor to the stand clearly backfired.

Firenze v. National Labor Relations Board

993 F. Supp. 2d 40 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jan 27, 2014

It is firmly established that the Government may not impair its employees’ right to speak as citizens on matters of public concern. U.S. v. … If the potential speech addressed a matter of public interest at all, that issue was less clearly a matter of public concern.

Peabody Essex Museum, Inc. v. United States Fire Insurance

623 F. Supp. 2d 98 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Mar 31, 2009

The court explained that it meant to "borrow from the law in the employment discrimination field ... and establish a two-stage order of proof.” Id. at *4-5 (citing Blare v. Husky Injection Molding Sys. … The "how” — whether "sudden and accidental” or gradual — is clearly U.S. Fire's burden under Polaroid .