Case law

United States Ex Rel. Carpenter v. Abbott Laboratories, Inc.

723 F. Supp. 2d 395 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jul 16, 2010

Protease inhibitors are drugs used to control the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV). 3 HIV progressively destroys the body’s ability to fight off opportunistic infections by attacking the cells of the immune system. … While FERA’s language establishing its effective date appears dispositive, Carpenter and Abbott disagree over the meaning of the word “claims.”

Nett v. Bellucci

437 Mass. 630 · Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · Sep 4, 2002

The question, then, was whether the March 10, 1999, filing of a motion for leave to amend qualified as the “commencement” of the action against Dr. Gross for purposes of the statutes of repose. … The filing of the motion to amend is a step that is as clearly recorded, and clearly documented by court records, as the filing of the amended complaint itself.

JEREMY PARADISE v. JOHN POMERANCE & Others.

Massachusetts Appeals Court · Apr 10, 2026

Preferred Fragrance's statement of New York law is also the law of Massachusetts, because the court's description of the limits on an attorney's duty to ensure the client's understanding of a legal document contains a key qualifying … The judge here agreed that "Mintz could and should have done a much better job clearly delineating the scope of its representation and whom it represented in connection with the formation of the trusts."

Coggon v. Barnhart

354 F. Supp. 2d 40 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Feb 3, 2005

Jonas stated that Slayton “clearly ... states that he feels that the personality is the central issue.” Id. at 47 . … It is well established that Coggon drove an automobile. R. at 32-33, 40-41.

Campbell v. Bristol Community College

District Court, D. Massachusetts · Aug 22, 2019

As an African-American, Campbell is clearly a member of a protected class, and both parties agree that the college terminated her employment. … The First Circuit has held that a period of roughly a month may qualify as sufficiently close in time to establish a prima facie case. See Calero-Cerezo v.

Perez v. Licon-Vitale

District Court, D. Massachusetts · Sep 14, 2022

As discussed below, the court agrees with defendants and allows their first motion to dismiss.17 17 The court need not address defendants’ other arguments, including that they are entitled to qualified immunity and … immunity. See #37 at 19-25. The court’s rulings below also dispense with any requests for non- monetary relief.

Norman Destrempe v. School Committee of Watertown.

Massachusetts Appeals Court · Sep 25, 2024

The arbitrator concluded that the plaintiff's actions constituted an "unwelcomed physical touching and therefore clearly violated the [town]'s sexual harassment policy." … The judge agreed with that analysis, concluding that "[t]o hold otherwise would be inconsistent with established principles of statutory construction and interpretation." We concur. See EMC Corp. v.

JOSEPH REILLY, STEVEN WENNERS, TERRY PAULSEN, JOANNE LAULETTA and JACKIE KEITH v. LANE, LANE & KELLY LLP, DAVID B. LANE, NINA MARTIN Et A/. @MEMORANDUM OF DECISION AND ORDER ON LANE DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS

Massachusetts Superior Court · Oct 1, 2025

First, Massachusetts decisional law makes clear that, as merely would-be takers under a Will that was never finalized, witnessed and executed, Plaintiffs cannot qualify as intended third- party beneficiaries of the testator's … Amplifying her reasoning further, Judge Burnes rehearsed the conflict of interest principle at the heart of Miller in a manner that makes clear why Plaintiffs' clearly analogous claims in this case must fail.

United States v. Gibert

25 F. Cas. 1287 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts · Oct 15, 1834

Both of these statutes clearly establish that the party is not to be understood to stand mute, when he has pleaded not guilty; and that as soon as the plea of not guilty is put in, the cause must be tried by the jury. … In the actual form and qualified manner, in which this objection is now couched, that “if the jury believed upon the evidence that,” &c., (stating certain facts.)

Roche v. Evans

249 F. Supp. 2d 47 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Mar 10, 2003

Roche is strictly liable to a civil penalty for entering the closed area, without proof of intent that he knowingly or intentionally violated the proscription. *58 It is also clear that the ALJ’s finding that Roche did not qualify … While it might have been possible for the ALJ to have made other findings, the findings he did make were clearly supported by the evidence before him. C.

Herbert A. Sullivan, Inc. v. Utica Mutual Insurance

439 Mass. 387 · Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · May 16, 2003

SRMG’s attempt to amend its pleadings after trial to add estoppel claims was clearly untimely and arguably prejudicial to Utica Mutual. … SRMG presented the testimony of John Herlihy, an attorney and former claims handler, who, although not qualified as an expert claims handler, was allowed to respond to hypothetical questions as to the proper handling of insurance

Howell v. John Leahy

District Court, D. Massachusetts · May 5, 2022

The Lowell Regional Transportation Authority was established as “a political subdivision of the Commonwealth [of Massachusetts]” and includes the “city of Lowell and the towns of Billerica, Chelmsford, Dracut, Tewksbury … P. 10(c), use of exhibits does not excuse Howell of his responsibility to clearly and succinctly set forth the relevant allegations in the body of the complaint.

Parkins v. Boule

2 Mass. L. Rptr. 331 · Massachusetts Superior Court · Aug 3, 1994

Schools are required to establish weapons policies and to provide such information to students. … The Court has clearly established that the control of misconduct in the public school systems of the United States “necessarily” depends upon the discretion and judgment of school officials. Wood v.

Lluberes v. Uncommon Productions, LLC

740 F. Supp. 2d 207 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Aug 16, 2010

The statement, however, is clearly a rhetorical one and cannot be proved true or false, contrary to the required elements of a defamation. King v. … See St Amant, 390 U.S. at 733 , 88 S.Ct. 1323 (“Failure to investigate does not in itself establish bad faith.”).

London-Sire Records, Inc. v. Doe 1

542 F. Supp. 2d 153 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Mar 31, 2008

Copyright infringement, per se, is clearly not speech entitled to First Amendment protection. See Harper & Row Publishers, Inc. v. … Clearly, that description accurately characterizes electronic file transfers.

Moore

District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jan 13, 2026

Ineffective assistance of counsel standard For the purposes of habeas review, “[t]he Strickland standard qualifies as clearly established federal law.” Janosky v. St. … For the aforementioned reasons, the SJC did not unreasonably apply clearly established Federal law when it determined that Moore’s counsel did not provide ineffective assistance by failing to martial Martin’s cell phone

McDermott v. Marcus, Errico, Emmer & Brooks, P.C.

911 F. Supp. 2d 1 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Nov 20, 2012

Ladick to his condominium association qualifies as a debt under the FDCPA”); Dikun v. … MEEB fails to establish a bona fide error defense.

In Re Pharmaceutical Industry Average Wholesale Price Litigation

491 F. Supp. 2d 20 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jun 21, 2007

It is true that the same entity can sue as a plaintiff under § 11 in one case, and be immune to suit under § 11 in a different case. See Boston Hous. Auth. v. … Class 3 consumers who made co-payments clearly have a claim under § 9. 50 .

Cablevision of Boston, Inc. v. Public Improvement Commission

38 F. Supp. 2d 46 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jan 27, 1999

VI, cl. 2, does not secure and is not itself a right, privilege or immunity secured by the Constitution. Chapman v. … In this case, it appears that Congress knew how to clearly create a private right of action when it considered the TCA. It expressly created at least two private rights of action in that statute.

Martignetti v. Haigh-Farr, Inc.

425 Mass. 294 · Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · Jun 24, 1997

In this instance, we have recognized that the 1992 amendments “more clearly defined the nature of an action under § 4 of [c. 21E].” Oliveira v. … Saraland Apartments, 94 F.3d 1489, 1496, 1513-1514 (11th Cir. 1996) (party not qualifying as “innocent” may only bring claim against other responsible parties under § 113, not § 107); Control Data Corp. v. S.C.S.C.