Case law

In Re: In the Matter of Ryan Denver as Owner of M/V Make it Go Away, for Exoneration From or Limitation Liability

District Court, D. Massachusetts · Mar 12, 2024

[LOLA] clearly provides that it applies purely to vessel owners, . . . and it is well settled that a court should follow the plain language of an unambiguous statute.”). … attempt to seek “protection solely as a vessel owner[] fail[ed] because the event as pled occurred with [the owner’s] privity and knowledge as captain of the vessel,” and also that the owner and captain could “not receive immunity

Commonwealth v. Costley

118 Mass. 1 · Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · Jun 21, 1875

If they find clearly that the prisoner shot this pistol, then that fact is not to be laid aside, but may be used in connection with the other evidence in finding the other facts which are involved in the indictment, such … For it is not sufficient to establish a probability, though a strong one, arising from the doctrine of chances, that the fact charged is more likely to be true than the contrary • but the evidence must establish the truth

Kroeger v. Stop & Shop Companies, Inc.

13 Mass. App. Ct. 310 · Massachusetts Appeals Court · Mar 16, 1982

These we accept unless clearly erroneous. Mass.R.Civ.P. 52(a), 365 Mass. 816 (1974). New England Canteen Serv., Inc. v. Ashley, 372 Mass. 671, 674 (1977). C.C. & T. Constr. Co. v. Coleman Bros., 8 Mass. App. … He, thus, loses $29,235 without Stop & Shop having established specific pecuniary damages by reason of Kroeger's activity as an employee of Pneumo.

ADOPTION OF MICAH (And a Companion Case).

Massachusetts Appeals Court · Mar 14, 2025

The mother's psychological expert testified that the mother "clearly displayed breaks with reality." … L. c. 210, § 3, do not qualify as 'services, programs, or activities' [under the ADA], and thus, the ADA may not be raised as a defense to such proceedings" (citation omitted).

Chardin v. Police Commissioner

465 Mass. 314 · Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · Jun 4, 2013

Since Heller , “[cjourts have consistently recognized that Heller established that the possession of operative firearms for use in defense of the home constitutes the ‘core’ of the Second Amendment.” Hightower v. … This pronouncement suggests that the initial inquiry to be made when evaluating a right to bear arms is not whether the handgun is necessary for self-defense in the home, but whether an individual is qualified to possess

Commonwealth v. Wittey

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · Jun 5, 2023

In Dunn, the United States Supreme Court set out four factors to consider in determining whether a particularly described area qualifies as curtilage: (1) "the proximity of the area claimed to be curtilage to the … "[R]egardless of the illegality of the initial entry and search, the evidence is admissible as long as the affidavit in support of the application for a search warrant contains information sufficient to establish

Utica Mutual Insurance v. Cohen

32 Mass. L. Rptr. 393 · Massachusetts Superior Court · Apr 4, 2014

“A final judgment in one State, if rendered by a court with adjudicatory authority over the subject matter and persons governed by the judgment, qualifies for recognition throughout the land.” Id. at 233. … In the present case, the plaintiffs claims are asserted in the Complaint with sufficient particularity, as they clearly *400 identify both the defendant and the factual circumstances surrounding her purportedly fraudulent

Oates v. Chao

District Court, D. Massachusetts · Apr 6, 2022

A plaintiff must first establish a prima facie discrimination claim by showing by a preponderance of the evidence that “1) she was disabled within the meaning of the statute; 2) she was qualified to perform … This clearly evokes a disparate treatment claim, not a disparate impact claim.

Holland v. Cruft

69 Mass. 162 · Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · Mar 15, 1855

The object was to make them a proprietary, a qualified species of corporation well known in our early history, established to enable a large number of tenants in common the more conveniently to hold, manage and dispose of … This designates very clearly one seized and in actual possession.

FINANCIAL RESOURCES NETWORK, INC. v. Brown & Brown, Inc.

754 F. Supp. 2d 128 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Nov 18, 2010

FACTUAL BACKGROUND 1 Financial Resources is a Massachusetts corporation that administers and maintains the FRN Plan, a qualified 401(k) pension plan for Financial Resources employees. … Himmer, 949 F.2d 1, 4 (1st Cir.1991) (statute of limitations legislatively established will not be easily overlooked).

Association of American Universities v. Department of Defense

District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jul 18, 2025

Sovereign Immunity Defendants next contend that this Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain this suit because “the actions at issue are ‘committed to agency discretion by law. … dohave a NICRA, subsection (f)’s relevance is that it clearly establishes that grant recipients “are not required to use the de minimis rate.” Id.

BT Prime Ltd. v. Bos. Techs. Powered By Forexware LLC (In re BT Prime Ltd.)

599 B.R. 670 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Massachusetts · Mar 29, 2019

The required elements are clearly stated in the statute. Fraud is not an element, so there is no need to state with particularity circumstances constituting fraud. … Third, FXDD Malta argues that it qualifies for the "safe harbor" that is the affirmative defense in § 546(e) because the payment in issue were margin call payments to which that subsection applies.

McGinn v. Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs

District Court, D. Massachusetts · Oct 23, 2020

For Plaintiff, as a public employee, to prevail on his § 1983 claim alleging a violation of his right to free speech under the First Amendment, he must establish: (1) that he spoke as a citizen on a matter of public concern … Accordingly, the court does not need to grapple with Beaton’s argument that he is protected under the doctrine of qualified immunity since that defense is only applicable to the § 1983 claim. b.

United States v. Letter From Alexander Hamilton

District Court, D. Massachusetts · Oct 28, 2020

The Letter clearly constitutes a public record under the 1897 Act. The Letter qualifies as a public record under modern Massachusetts statutes as well. For example, Mass. Gen. … The Letter clearly fits within the “broad” definition of “public records” since it is a paper “made or received by any officer or employee of any Massachusetts governmental entity.” Attorney Gen. v.

Frontier Management Co., Inc. v. Balboa Ins. Co.

658 F. Supp. 987 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Dec 30, 1986

These allegations, if proven at al, might be sufficient to establish t Frontier acted as Omaha’s agent. This j tual dispute should be resolved at trial i not on a motion to dismiss. … This pleading clearly alleges unjust enrichment by the defendants, and is sufficient to meet the pleading requirements of Rule 8. Accordingly, plaintiffs’ motion to dismiss Count VII of the counterclaim is DENIED.

Eichenholz v. Brink's Incorporated

District Court, D. Massachusetts · Mar 6, 2019

FMLA Retaliation In order to establish a prima facie case of FMLA retaliation, Eichenholz must establish that: (1) he availed himself of a protected FMLA right; (2) he was … “To establish a prima facie case of employment discrimination on the basis of handicap under G.L. c. 151B, § 4(16), the plaintiff must show that he is ‘handicapped’ within the meaning of the statute; that he is a ‘qualified

Davidson v. Yihai Cao

211 F. Supp. 2d 264 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Apr 11, 2002

In order to establish a breach of contract claim under Illinois law, the plaintiffs, in this instance the CMCC defendants, must establish: (1) the existence of a valid contract; (2) the plaintiffs’ performance of their obligations … Allegations made by plaintiffs are clearly labeled as such and not considered part of the factual record.

Commonwealth v. Martin

7 Mass. L. Rptr. 295 · Massachusetts Superior Court · Jun 30, 1997

They were all qualified in their field. The defendant’s experts, Brian E. Pape, PhD 3 and David Benjamin, PhD 4 were toxicologists: Richard Carleston, MD, 5 was qualified in the field of cardiology. … As such, it was clearly material. In People v.

Johnson v. CIA

District Court, D. Massachusetts · Sep 17, 2018

It is not the Agency’s burden to establish which identities have or have not been disclosed elsewhere. … Since the emails do not qualify for this exemption, there is no need to address the second prong of the analysis.

Barbosa v. Silva

District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jun 24, 2021

petitioner raises a claim that was adjudicated on the merits in state court, federal habeas courts must defer to the state court’s determination unless it was “contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly … Not even clear error will establish an objectively unreasonable conclusion. White, 572 U.S. at 419.