Case law

Cahill v. O'Rourke

District Court, D. Massachusetts · Sep 27, 2019

The defendant contends that Cahill cannot establish that she was a qualified individual in 2015 because of the sworn statements in, and subsequent approval of, her FERS disability benefits application. … A plaintiff claiming failure to accommodate under the Rehabilitation Act must establish by a preponderance of the evidence that: (1) she was disabled within the meaning of the statute; (2) she was qualified to perform

Morse v. Mutual Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n

3 Mass. Supp. 176 · Massachusetts District Court · Feb 3, 1982

The given purpose was to relieve the immediacy of the bad check indebtedness; defendant concedes, as it must, that it did not establish an enforceable lien on the Morse’s home. … I also believe it included the injury to reputation in mental damages, as it clearly did in another matter, post.

Commonwealth v. Snyder

282 Mass. 401 · Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · Mar 30, 1933

In these circumstances there was no occasion for the judge to go further than to follow the established rule. Commonwealth v. Webster, 5 Cush. 295 . Holt v. United States, 218 U. S. 245, 248 . … The contention of the defendant Snyder is “that such testimony was within the knowledge of the ordinary person who was as qualified as the witness to give his opinion on the sub *419 ject.”

Shaari v. Harvard Student Agencies, Inc.

5 Mass. L. Rptr. 623 · Massachusetts Superior Court · Jul 19, 1996

In so doing, Judge Neel determined that the 1990 entry was “clearly opinion.” … Judge Neel has already found that the statements in the 1990 entry were “clearly opinion”; this Court does not disagree.

Lu v. Hulme

133 F. Supp. 3d 312 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Sep 22, 2015

The court then established a schedule for the submissions of any motions for summary judgment. On April 3, 2015, the defendants moved for summary judgment on both counts of Lu’s complaint. … They further argue that, even if the library violated Lu’s constitutional rights, defendant Hulme is protected from liability by qualified immunity. Lu opposes the motion for summary judgment.

Commonwealth v. Pring-Wilson

19 Mass. L. Rptr. 624 · Massachusetts Superior Court · Jun 24, 2005

“Only if a decision establishes ‘a new principle of law, either by overruling clear past precedent on which litigants may have relied ... or by deciding an issue of first impression whose resolution was not clearly foreshadowed … Clearly this goes toward the threshold inquiry discussed in Breese concerning the accuracy of a guilty verdict.

United States v. Harty

476 F. Supp. 2d 17 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Mar 7, 2007

She also told Harty that in her opinion he qualified as an armed career criminal. DISCUSSION A. … Under Biggers and Brathwaite , a defendant bears the initial burden of establishing by a preponderance of the evidence that an identification procedure was suggestive.

TalentBurst, Inc. v. Collabera, Inc.

507 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.

United States v. Patel

524 F. Supp. 2d 107 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Nov 27, 2007

It is the position of this court that it is the Government’s burden to establish competency to stand trial, not the defendant’s burden to establish incompetency. … Patel was clearly not putting forth his best effort on cognitive testing. His self-presentation and pattern of psychometric responses was simply not credible.

In re the Liquidation of American Mutual Liability Insurance

434 Mass. 272 · Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · Jun 1, 2001

In asserting that § 180C fixes their priority rights as of the liquidation date, the objectors overlook the qualifying phrase, “unless otherwise ordered by the court” set forth in that same section. … Pritchard, supra, establish clearly that “insolvency laws are remedial in nature, and that, while creditors may develop expectations of what they might receive under those laws, they do not acquire vested rights to particular

Rummel v. Peters

314 Mass. 504 · Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · Sep 13, 1943

Smith, 305 Mass. 485 ), there is no *514 intermediate concept with any clearly defined legal meaning that lies between domicil and ordinary residence as defined in Jenkins v. … We assume that the judge might have disbelieved the evidence of continuing domicil in Pennsylvania, and drawn inferences that would establish a domicil in Massachusetts.

Tyree v. Healey

District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jan 29, 2024

prisoner has raised claims that: (a) are legally frivolous or malicious; (b) fail to state a claim on which relief can be granted; or (c) seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune … Plaintiff’s use of exhibits, including 4 the letter of intent, does not excuse plaintiff of his responsibility to clearly

Great Northern Insurance v. Paino Associates

364 F. Supp. 2d 7 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Apr 13, 2005

“It is an established principle that a duty voluntarily assumed must be performed with due care.” Mullins v. … If this court were to hold that there was no liability in these circumstances, then the Massachusetts policy of providing an opportunity for rehabilitation of those with a criminal record would be expanded into an immunity

United States ex rel. D'Agostino v. EV3, Inc.

153 F. Supp. 3d 519 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Dec 30, 2015

While the purported misrepresentation was clearly in the public domain, the facts from which the existence of a fraud might be inferred were drawn from D’Agostino’s experience as a senior sales manager for EV3. … Compl. ¶ 186 n.16, as with Onyx, he does not establish that any of those patients were in fact treated with Axium. 3.

Scottsdale Insurance Company v. United Rentals (North America), Inc.

District Court, D. Massachusetts · Mar 30, 2018

First, she pointed to alternative contractual provisions that clearly and expressly limit coverage to cases of vicarious liability. Id. … The Net Loss policy is also an excess policy (as clearly stated in its title, “Excess Commercial General Liability Policy”).

Kibbe v. Potter

196 F. Supp. 2d 48 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Mar 21, 2002

Clearly, Plaintiffs did not bargain away their right to be free from sexual harassment in employment, see Alexander v. … Sovereign immunity serves to protect the federal government from unconsented suits that go to invading the public treasury and mandating governmental action ....

Cassidy v. Ryan

District Court, D. Massachusetts · Feb 5, 2019

established law. … None of these rulings, singularly or cumulatively, amount to a ruling contrary to clearly established federal law and Cassidy does not explain how it does.

Commonwealth v. DiGiacomo

57 Mass. App. Ct. 312 · Massachusetts Appeals Court · Feb 6, 2003

On appeal, the defendant argues that the evidence did not qualify under an exception to the hearsay rule because the conversation took place after the defendant’s alleged sexual assaults on Maura and because Hancock’s testimony … The allegations against the defendant were clearly unrelated to any desire of Nicole to avoid prosecution. Id. at 378 . There was no error in excluding the evidence.

Dobin v. CIOview Corp.

16 Mass. L. Rptr. 785 · Massachusetts Superior Court · Oct 29, 2003

Chapter 149, section 148 of these labor laws clearly states that “No person shall by special contract with an employee or by any other means exempt himself from this section or from section one hundred and fifty.” … Here, in contrast to Boston Police Patrolmen , there is no state statute specifically authorizing the deferral so as to qualify for federal tax benefits under the Internal Revenue Code. Compare with id. at 720 .

Commonwealth v. Agogo

93 Mass. App. Ct. 495 · Massachusetts Appeals Court · Jun 29, 2018

concluded that the strip search was not authorized by the "officer in charge," he did not  19 do so by finding that a "commanding officer" does not qualify … Rather, he mistakenly stated that there was no testimony supporting the conclusion that Betz was the commanding officer, which is clearly erroneous.9 See Commonwealth v. Castillo, 89 Mass. App.