Case law

Lewis v. Spaulding

District Court, D. Massachusetts · Nov 16, 2018

A TRO may issue without notice only if "specific facts in an affidavit or a verified complaint clearly show that immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or damage will result to the movant before the adverse party can be … In order to secure injunctive relief, Lewis must establish that he is likely to succeed on a claim that “the defendants’ actions amounted to ‘deliberate indifference to a serious medical need.’” DesRosiers v.

Haufler v. Zotos

446 Mass. 489 · Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · Apr 12, 2006

Certainly his finding is not clearly erroneous. … Because, he said, the deed at issue conveyed the triangular parcel with the existing dwelling on it to Zotos, “the Building Department no longer feels” that Haufler’s property “will qualify for a Building Permit.”

Boos v. Abbott Laboratories

925 F. Supp. 49 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Apr 30, 1996

It remains to say that the services here, although useful, do not qualify as ‘necessities.’ *52 SDK, 371 Mass. at 128-129 , 354 N.E.2d 852 (citations omitted). … By contrast, Chapter 93A specifically requires that its prohibitions be interpreted consistently with those of the FTC Act, see M.G.L. ch. 93A § 2(b), which clearly includes anticompetitive conduct within it purview.

Massachusetts Eye & Ear Infirmary v. QLT Phototherapeutics, Inc.

167 F. Supp. 2d 108 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Apr 13, 2001

Once a privilege has been established, the burden shifts to the proponent to establish an exception to the privilege. See Ogden Corp., 202 F.3d at 460 . … Pitcher stated: While we remain prepared to file an application (or prosecute the original) limiting the subject matter to inventions clearly conceived and reduced to practice by Drs.

Silva v. Tompkins

District Court, D. Massachusetts · Apr 25, 2019

In rejecting Powell’s due process argument, the First Circuit held that he failed to establish that the state court’s decision conflicted with clearly established Supreme Court precedent and noted that Powell failed to … Nor has Silva cited any clearly-established federal law that was violated. 3.

Neff Group Distributors, Inc. v. Cognex Corporation

District Court, D. Massachusetts · Aug 5, 2022

§ 1404(a) to determine whether any public interest factors clearly disfavor a transfer in the interests of justice. Id. at 63. … In sum, plaintiff has not met its burden of establishing that enforcement of the forum-selection clause would be unreasonable.

Hutchinson v. Select Portfolio Services, Inc.

District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jul 3, 2019

No. 1-1, fails to allege conduct by DGL that falls outside of the scope of DGL’s attorney-client relationship with SPS and the Trustee and that, for actions it took within that scope, DGL is entitled to the immunity of … “In actions seeking declaratory or injunctive relief, it is well established that the amount in controversy is measured by the value of the object of the litigation.” Hunt v. Wash. State Apple Advert.

Damon v. Carlson

District Court, D. Massachusetts · Sep 25, 2023

In the alternative, they argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity. … In order to establish a claim under Section 1983, Damon must establish that a person acting under the color of law denied him a right secured by the constitution or by federal law.

Siemens Gamesa Renewable Energy A/S v. General Electric Co.

District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jul 27, 2022

There is “no explicit lower limit on the quantum or quality of inventive contribution required for a person to qualify as a joint inventor.” Id. at 1358. … The situation in Kimberly-Clark is clearly distinguishable from the case at hand.

Ginger Sirikanjanachai

United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Massachusetts · Jan 3, 2020

The present motion does not clearly identify (i) the property in question, (ii)  the judicial lien that allegedly impairs it, and (iii) the exemption under which she contends that she could  claim the property as exempt.  … Original Motion on several grounds, among them (i)  that “[t]he Debtor’s assertion that this $55,000 was somehow derived from the sale of her residence at  23 Ridgewood Crossing in Hingham (as it would have to be, in order to qualify

Shulse v. Western New England University

District Court, D. Massachusetts · Aug 4, 2020

Supp. 1342, 1353 (D.N.H.1985)) (“Clearly not every document referred to in a complaint may be considered incorporated by reference and thus introduced by the moving party in support of a motion to dismiss.”). … Once again, Shulse’s asserted failure to make satisfactory academic progress, Defendants’ articulated non-discriminatory justification, is not established by the complaint.

Deese-Laurent v. Real Liquidity, Inc.

District Court, D. Massachusetts · Mar 30, 2018

assert, by way of a motion, as a defense, or otherwise in any such suit, action or proceeding, any claim that it is not subject personally to the jurisdiction of the above-named courts, that its property is exempt or immune … Where plaintiff’s interests are derivative of Vineyard’s, it is clearly foreseeable that he is as subject to the NPA’s forum-selection clause as were the entities he managed.

Jiang v. Shogun Japanese Steak House, Inc.

District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jan 31, 2024

That assertion—bordering on frivolous—is clearly contrary to Local Rule 5.4 and CM/ECF Administrative Procedures Section M.3, and the Court will disregard it. B. … That is not enough to establish an employer-employee relationship between Shogun and plaintiff.

United States v. Brennan

832 F. Supp. 435 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Oct 29, 1991

In this case there was ample evidence to establish a conspiracy to misapply bank funds. … More specifically, the evidence indicated: McHugh approved the issuance of the $550,000 loan; the loan clearly exceeded his personal lending authority; McHugh knew Harbor Group was synonymous with Brennan and in desperate

Hlatky v. Steward Health Care System, LLC

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · Apr 28, 2020

She contends that remittitur was improper in this case because the jury's calculation is entitled to deference and the evidence introduced at trial clearly warranted a verdict in the amount awarded by the jury when one … The burden rests with the plaintiff to establish the date of breach.

Advanced Ion Beam Technology, Inc. v. Varian Semiconductor Equipment Associates, Inc.

721 F. Supp. 2d 62 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jul 2, 2010

When I reviewed your 1970 patent 3,541,328 it clearly refers to a plurality of coil units (claim 5) and a plurality of power supplies. … The issue "whether conduct in procuring or enforcing a patent is sufficient to strip a patentee of its immunity from the antitrust laws is to be decided as a question of Federal Circuit law.”

Massachusetts Institute of Technology v. Harman International Industries, Inc.

584 F. Supp. 2d 297 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Sep 9, 2008

The nature of the use, however, remained clearly experimental at all times. … She also found a lack of evidence to establish that anyone freely distributed Davis’s thesis prior to the critical date.

Commonwealth v. Edgerly

6 Mass. App. Ct. 241 · Massachusetts Appeals Court · Apr 19, 1978

The Witness Donald Tremblay A voir dire was held for the purpose of determining whether Donald Tremblay, a prosecution witness who had been granted immunity pursuant to G. … It would have been perfectly proper and well within his discretion to instruct the prosecutor to limit his objections to occasions when defense counsel clearly exceeded the bounds of permissible argument.

Richard W. Gannett v. Richard Neumeier, Morrison Mahoney LLP, Minnesota Lawyers Mutual Insurance Company, Molly Eiden and Mel L. Greenberg

Massachusetts Superior Court · Jul 9, 2024

The settlement was clearly not unreasonable. To the contrary, it approximated a best-case scenario for Plaintiff's arbitration- related claims. … While end-stage kidney disease may in some circumstances qualify as a disability, there is (for the reasons stated above) no evidence that this condition substantially limited Gannett' s cognitive abilities in the present

Deconinck v. Silva

District Court, D. Massachusetts · Mar 23, 2020

With respect to Fay’s recorded statement, the judge found that it did not qualify as Adjutant evidence because it did not establish that the victim had been the first to use deadly force. … In the circumstances presented here, the SJC’s resolution of this claim does not appear to contravene or unreasonably apply any clearly established Supreme Court precedent. See Liteky v.