Case law

Liberty Mutual Insurance Company v. Broan-Nutone, LLC

District Court, D. Massachusetts · Apr 26, 2024

At most, Liberty offhandedly remarks in its opposition to Broan’s Daubert motion that the steel divider in the connection junction box clearly was not smooth based on photographs taken after … As such, Liberty cannot establish the existence of an implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose and therefore cannot prove a breach of such a warranty. 4.

Courtemanche v. General Services Administration

172 F. Supp. 2d 251 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Nov 13, 2001

A two-part test has been established to assess ripeness in the context of a declaratory judgment action. See Abbott Labs., 387 U.S. at 149 , 87 S.Ct. 1507 . … She need not show, therefore, the likelihood of repetition of the injury in order to establish standing.

Lucas v. New Penn Financial, LLC

District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jan 31, 2019

The January 11 letter asserted that Plaintiffs’ “financial and other information indicates that although [Plaintiffs] may have a hardship, [Plaintiffs] do not qualify for a loan modification Trial Period Plan. … 1692d prohibits debt collectors from engaging in “any conduct the natural consequence of which is to harass, oppress, or abuse any person in connection with the collection of a debt,” 4 Although the Complaint does not clearly

Kaiser v. Kirchick

District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jan 20, 2022

Thus, in asserting the privilege, Rudnick bears the burden of establishing these elements. See Clair, 982 N.E.2d at 41 n.28. … Rudnick has failed to establish the first element of the common interest doctrine.

United States v. Sampson

148 F. Supp. 3d 75 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Sep 8, 2015

It- will not be possible to establish a new schedule for the retrial until the motion for my recusal is finally resolved. II. … Nor can a new schedule be established until the motion for my recusal is finally resolved.

Edmund E. Ward v. Ernst J. Schaefer, MD

District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jun 7, 2022

District courts are “bound by the limitations” established by § 1920, and costs not listed under that section may not be awarded. See Crawford Fitting Co. v. J.T. … “Litigation qualifies as ‘vexatious’ if it is ‘harassing or annoying, regardless of whether it is intended to be so.’” Lamboy-Ortiz v. Ortiz-Velez, 630 F.3d 228, 245 (1st Cir. 2010) (quoting Cruz v.

Hawkinson v. Immigration and Customs Enforcement

District Court, D. Massachusetts · Aug 12, 2021

Thus, they are clearly drafted for a party in anticipation of further litigation in the Pereira Brito case. … But even assuming it did, DHS clearly met that requirement.

Pizza Hazel, Inc. v. American Express Company

District Court, D. Massachusetts · Sep 19, 2025

Plaintiffs do not challenge this established legal principle; rather, they submit that the Agreement also presents a clear instance of “unfair surprise,” which in turn establishes procedural unconscionability. … Here, Judge Boal’s May 19, 2025 order is neither clearly erroneous nor contrary to law.

Sony BMG Music Entertainment v. Tenenbaum

721 F. Supp. 2d 85 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jul 9, 2010

Since he admitted engaging in conduct that clearly constituted copyright infringement at trial, I directed judgment in the plaintiffs’ favor on this issue. … When one of the developers of Gnutella pointed out to the committee members that they might be engaging in copyright infringement, Senator Hatch responded that their downloading and public performance of the Creed song qualified

Gautreau v. Hopkinton Public Schools

District Court, D. Massachusetts · Apr 19, 2018

acceptable level; (3) was terminated; and that (4) his employer sought to fill his position by hiring a similarly qualified individual. … The record clearly chronicles plaintiff’s deteriorating relationship with Keller, but contains scant evidence of discrimination animating that deterioration.

Sues

District Court, D. Massachusetts · May 21, 2026

Sues fails to establish either basis. … Second, even if “Doober” were sufficiently distinctive to qualify for protection, Sues nevertheless fails to allege facts supporting a plausible likelihood of consumer confusion.

Mall Properties, Inc. v. Marsh

672 F. Supp. 561 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Sep 8, 1987

THE STANDARD OF REVIEW The standard of review to be applied in this case is established by the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 706 (2)(A), (D) (1982). … Although Metropolitan Edison apparently qualifies at least parts of the Hanly ruling, particularly the reliance on fears of disturbances, the close proximity of the jail to the apartment houses, and the court’s focus on noise

Cummings v. City of Newton

District Court, D. Massachusetts · Feb 6, 2018

Section 1983 creates a cause of action against persons who, under color of state law, deprive a United States citizen of any “rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and … On the other hand, Cummings alleges that at the press conference prior to the hearing, Warren “had already clearly stated his intent to terminate plaintiff.”

Muehe v. Boston, City of

District Court, D. Massachusetts · Nov 2, 2021

Supp. 2d at 209, many of their entries qualified as “non-core work.” … Additionally, the rates sought by attorneys from Disability Law Center (DLC) are based on rates established by the Massachusetts Law Reform Institute and have recently been approved by this court.

Smith v. City of Boston

144 F. Supp. 3d 177 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Nov 16, 2015

Trial exhibits without clearly identifiable titles are referred to simply by their numbering. . … Second, the City bears the burden of establishing the validity of the E & E component, meaning it must establish a relationship between the content of the training/experience that is rewarded, and the content of the job.

Cushman v. Cushman

179 Mass. 601 · Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · Oct 18, 1901

Whether witness qualified as expert question for presiding judge, see Kailboad, 6. Discretion of Court. 26. … Held, that the refusal was right, there being clearly a lien for the extra work, and, also, that the petitioner might establish his lien for the amount due him in equity and good conscience for the benefit conferred by him

United States v. Trustees of Boston College

831 F. Supp. 2d 435 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Dec 16, 2011

Whitney, 124 U.S. at 194 , 8 S.Ct. 456 (establishing the “last-in-time rule”). The Court thus will analyze the two laws in chronological order. 1. … The term “laws of the Requested States” appears multiple times in the UK-MLAT, but unfortunately these references are not clearly identical in context.

McFee v. Yeh

District Court, D. Massachusetts · Nov 15, 2021

They filed a motion to dismiss plaintiff’s second amended complaint (#105) based on their immunity from suit, and plaintiff’s failure to exhaust administrative remedies and to state a claim.2 A report and recommendation … received is ‘so clearly inadequate as to amount to a refusal to provide essential care.’” (quoting Miranda v. Munoz, 770 F.2d 255, 259 (1st Cir. 1985))). Dr.

Thompson v. PennyMac Loan Services LLC

District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jul 16, 2025

unfairness, “[w]e look to (1) whether the practice . . . is within at least the penumbra of some common-law, statutory, or other established concept of unfairness; (2) whether it is immoral, unethical, oppressive … And further, it clearly provides that Evolve conveyed an interest to PennyMac. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Count XI claim against PennyMac, as stated in the Original Complaint, must be dismissed.

LaRose v. OMalley

District Court, D. Massachusetts · Dec 2, 2024

SSR 85-28, which governs medical impairments that are not severe, explicitly required the ALJ here to find that the medical evidence “clearly established” that Plaintiff’s back and rib impairment was “not medically severe … Accordingly, in reviewing the ALJ’s non-severity determination, the Court asks “whether the ALJ had substantial evidence to find that [pursuant to SSR 85-28] the medical evidence clearly established that [Plaintiff] did