Case law

The Woodward School for Girls, Inc. v. City of Quincy

469 Mass. 151 · Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · Jul 23, 2014

"A finding [of fact] is clearly erroneous . . . … L. c. 258, § 10, explicitly excludes certain types of claims that the Legislature clearly decided must give way to sovereign immunity.

President of Harvard College v. Board of Aldermen

104 Mass. 470 · Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · Mar 15, 1870

This course of legislation led to the adoption of the qualified general exemption contained in the Rev. Sts. c. 7, § 5. … That being so, whatever right or power there might be in the Commonwealth, in case of an advance in the value of the lands beyond the established limit, to require the corporation to reduce its possessions, or to withdraw

Commonwealth v. Upton

390 Mass. 562 · Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · Dec 12, 1983

He asserts that the affidavit presented in support of that search warrant failed to establish probable cause to issue it. … the Constitution of the Commonwealth that a grant of immunity must be a grant of transactional, and not merely use, immunity.

Weston Forest & Trail Ass'n v. Fishman

66 Mass. App. Ct. 654 · Massachusetts Appeals Court · Jun 30, 2006

L. c. 184, §§ 31-33, the Legislature recognized, and sought to protect, the public benefits of conserving land and water in their “natural, scenic or open condition” by government bodies and qualified charitable corporations … In particular, Fishman’s estoppel and loches claims are not frivolous because the case law does not clearly establish that a private entity such as the WFTA is immune from such claims.

E.F.Y Realty Corp. v. City of Lynn

12 Mass. L. Rptr. 320 · Massachusetts Superior Court · Jun 26, 2000

The defendants claim they are entitled to qualified immunity because the alleged constitutional violation, failure to provide due process by failing to notify the owner and mortgagee before demolishing the building, was not … clearly established by the time of demolition.

Antelman v. Lewis

480 F. Supp. 180 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Nov 13, 1979

of immunity would remain valid even if his order regarding attachment were ineffective. … In either event, plaintiff has failed either to allege or to support by affidavit his ability to establish the prima facie elements of the claims.

In the Matter of Spring

380 Mass. 629 · Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · May 13, 1980

Hence we agree with the Appeals Court that the critical finding was not clearly erroneous. … Thus the judge’s findings were not clearly erroneous and the judge’s May 15 order was in accordance with law.

Appling v. City of Brockton

649 F. Supp. 258 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Dec 8, 1986

regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities … The House Report relied upon by the Day court clearly shows what Congress intended.

Bailey v. Town of Bourne

38 Mass. App. Ct. 70 · Massachusetts Appeals Court · Jan 26, 1995

Some of the Federal decisions permitting suit against the government rely on local law that does not clearly distinguish — as does Elias v. … To permit a party to ignore that immunity by making and releasing a claim against the employee and then to bring suit against the public employer rewards the complainant for not honoring the immunity established by the statute

United States v. Zajanckauskas

346 F. Supp. 2d 251 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · May 9, 2003

It is undisputed that the immunity agreement in this case does not clearly and unmistakably subject the government to monetary liability for any breach. … proprietor distinction found in its earlier Kania opinion, but it also characterized that opinion as premised on the criminal/civil distinction: A decision of one of our predecessor courts, the Court of Claims, has previously established

MONTAE v. American Airlines, Inc.

757 F. Supp. 2d 47 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Nov 4, 2010

The MSP, which is a state agency, cannot be sued directly unless it has waived its sovereign immunity or Congress has unequivocally abrogated that immunity pursuant to Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment. … In wrongful arrest cases, there are two theories under which to establish ADA liability: 1) where the police wrongfully arrest someone with a disability because they misperceive the effects of that disability as criminal

Commissioner of Revenue v. Kelly-Springfield Tire Co.

419 Mass. 262 · Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · Dec 23, 1994

If such in-State activities are de minimis, that is, if they establish only a trivial connection with the taxing State, § 381 continues to provide net corporate income tax immunity. Id. at 231-232. … to so qualify is voluntary.

Commonwealth v. Pennellatore

392 Mass. 382 · Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · Jul 5, 1984

The standard we applied was one clearly enunciated many years ago by the United States Supreme Court in Hoffman v. … Westbrooks’ refusal to testify regarding her role in the March 30 burglary clearly falls within this benchmark.

Mass. Inst. of Tech. v. MASS. DEPT. OF PUB. UTIL.

941 F. Supp. 233 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Aug 27, 1996

It requires that rates established for QFs "(i) [s]hall be just and reasonable and in the public interest; and (ii) [s]hall not discriminate against any qualifying facility in comparison to rates for sales to other customers … This rule provides that rates established for QFs "(i) [s]hall be just and reasonable and in the public interest; and (ii) [s]hall not discriminate against any qualifying facility in comparison to rates for sales to other

EDWARD G. WRIGHT v. THOMAS TURCO, THIRD, & Others (And a Companion Case).

Massachusetts Appeals Court · Nov 27, 2024

The defendants asserted, and the judge agreed, that they have qualified immunity to civil rights liability in this case because there was no clearly established law providing that photocopies of nonprivileged incoming … A determination of qualified immunity entails a two-part inquiry.

Diaz

District Court, D. Massachusetts · Oct 23, 2025

The doctrine of qualified immunity protects public employees “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … Defendant McGurn is therefore entitled to qualified immunity as to the claim for money damages, because it was not clearly established as of August 2019 that the First Amendment protected a prisoner’s right not to provide

County Commissioners v. Conservation Commission

380 Mass. 706 · Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · May 21, 1980

This legislative practice is clearly exemplified by G. … Such store or service establishment shall be clearly incidental to the primary industrial use. (4) Commercial kennel or hobby kennel, subject to the following conditions: (a) That the Board determine that such use is not

Aloha Freightways, Inc. v. Commissioner of Revenue

428 Mass. 418 · Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · Nov 19, 1998

Aloha clearly had sufficient contact with Massachusetts, in 1986, to establish “nexus,” and justify the imposition of the $228 corporate minimum excise. 4 b. Fair relation. … We note as a preliminary matter that Aloha is clearly not this hypothetical company.

Greater Lawrence Sanitary District v. Town of North Andover

439 Mass. 16 · Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · Mar 20, 2003

While this statutory scheme clearly limits the town’s ability to regulate wastewater facilities and sewage disposal, it does not prevent the town from imposing limited antinuisance conditions. … GLSD is an authority established by the Legislature and its facilities are not owned by the Commonwealth.

Harry Alan Gregg, Jr. Family Foundation, Inc. v. Commissioner of Corporations & Taxation

330 Mass. 538 · Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · Nov 13, 1953

Both of the corporate beneficiaries were duly qualified as tax exempt charitable institutions under the Federal internal revenue law. No distribution of any sort was made to the stockholders or directors as such. … Both sides rely to a considerable extent on decisions of this court dealing with exemption from local taxation of religious, educational, and charitable corporations, and those involving immunity of charitable corporations