7532 search results for query *

Summary: 272 F. Supp. I agree with Magistrate Judge Dein's analysis, and her ultimate conclusion that despite an obvious slip of the tongue, the reasonable doubt charge taken as a whole did not violate petitioner's due process rights.REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION REGARDING PETITIONER'S PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS DEIN, United States Magistrate Judge. I. INTRODUCTION Petitioner, Raymond Gaines ("Petitioner"), a state prisoner serving two life sentences for armed robbery and first degree murder, more.

Summary: 249 F. Supp. United States v. Meade, 175 F.3d 215, 225-226 (1st Cir.1999) (noting that "a person who is subject to [a domestic violence protection] order would not be sanguine about the legal consequences of possessing a firearm" and deciding that the statute does not violate due process); see also United States v. Reddick, 203 F.3d 767, 771 (10th Cir.2000) (holding that "due process does not require actual knowledge of the federal statute"); United States v. Bostic, 168 F.3d 718, 722-23 (4th more.

Summary: 665 F. Supp. Presently before the court are cross-motions for summary judgment in this class action "strip search" case brought by Gregory Garvey ("Garvey") and other similarly-situated pre-arraignment detainees ("Plaintiffs") at the now-closed Franklin County Jail ("FCJ") in Greenfield, Massachusetts. The class this court certified on April 15, 2008, consists of the following: All people strip searched without individualized suspicion on or after March 28, 2004, and before February 25, 2007, more.

Summary: 884 F. Supp. 622 (1995) Mary F. MULLOY, as Administratrix of the Estate of Carol Mulloy Cuttle, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES, Defendant. 2d 352 (1988); Doe v. United States, 838 F.2d 220, 223 (7th Cir.1988); Panella v. United States, 216 F.2d 622, 623 (2nd Cir.1954). at 3041-42 (plurality opinion); Garcia v. United States, 776 F.2d 116 (5th Cir.1985); Thigpen v. United States, 800 F.2d 393, 395 (4th Cir. 1986); Hughes v. United States, 662 F.2d 219 (4th Cir.1981); Hoot v. United States, 790 F.2d more.

Summary: 707 F. Supp. This standard has been formulated in various ways, including "reckless disregard," Martin v. White, 742 F.2d 469, 474 (8th Cir. 1984), Layne v. Vinzant, 657 F.2d 468, 471 (1st Cir.1981), "wanton infliction of pain," Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. at 104, 97 S.Ct. *615 at 291, and "gross negligence," Kibbe v. City of Springfield, 777 F.2d 801, 804 (1st Cir.1985), cert. Cf. Voutour v. Vitale, 761 F.2d 812, 820 (1st Cir.1985), cert. 2d 45 (1988) (quoting Duckworth v. Franzen, 780 F.2d more.

Summary: (2008) NEW ENGLAND CARPENTERS HEALTH BENEFITS FUND, et al., Plaintiffs, v. McKESSON CORPORATION, Defendant. INTRODUCTION In this proposed national class action, Plaintiffs allege that defendant McKesson Corporation ("McKesson"), a drug wholesaler, engaged in unlawful price-fixing by entering into an agreement with First DataBank,[1] a publishing company, to inflate the "average wholesale price" ("AWP") for numerous prescription pharmaceuticals beginning in late 2001. Plaintiffs allege that more.

Summary: 62 F. Supp. 2d 276 (1999) UNITED STATES of America, v. John F. SWEENEY, Jr., Defendant. *277 John C. McBride, McBride & Keefe, Boston, MA, Stephen F. Gordon, Gordon & Wise, Boston, MA, John C. McBride, McBride and Associates, Boston, MA, for John Sweeney, Jr., defendant. It alleges that he: did unlawfully, knowingly, and intentionally disobey and resist a lawful order, rule, decree and command of a Court of the United States of America, to wit: the May 29, 1997 and February 19, 1998 orders more.

Summary: 148 F. Supp. She contends that her rights under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution were violated when the defendants refused to afford her a hearing showing good cause for Town Administrator Connor's failure to reappoint her as the Town Accountant. On June 6, 2001, the parties appeared before this Court for a hearing on Metivier's Motion for a Preliminary Injunction, wherein Metivier seeks an order directing the defendants to provide her with a more.

Summary: 226 F. Supp. NOMOS sues ZMED, claiming the SonArray System infringes the '026 patent; ZMED countersues NOMOS, claiming the BAT System infringes the '154 patent. In support of its contention, NOMOS draws attention to the earlier Markman decision, which construed both claims 1 and 10 of the '154 patent as including the step of "using the second imaging device (e.g., the ultrasound probe that takes two-dimensional images) to make a three-dimensional rendering showing the organ." NOMOS argues that more.

Summary: 89 F. Supp. Edward J. Duffy, Terri J. Scadron, Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Brenda M. O'Malley, Dept of Justice, Civil Division, Washington, DC, Frank Crowley, Immigration & Naturalization, Special Assistant U.S. Attorney, Boston, MA, Steven Farquharson, Immigration and Naturalization Service, John F. Kennedy Federal, Boston, MA, Michael P. Lindemann, Assistant Director, Washington, DC, for Immigration & Naturalization Service, US, Respondents. I. Pending Matters Pending more.

Summary: 802 F. Supp. Joyce v. Town of Dennis, 705 F. Supp. Joyce v. Town of Dennis, 770 F. Supp. Defendants contend that special circumstances render an award of fees unjust in this case because Joyce 1) gave the defendants insufficient notice of her desire to play in the subject tournament, 2) refused to attend Golf Advisory Committee meetings at which her complaints were addressed, 3) did not return defense counsel's phone calls and 4) did not respond to the Town's settlement offer in February, 2011. more.

Summary: 183 F. Supp. 2d 415 (2002) Lawrence IANETTA, Plaintiff, v. PUTNAM INVESTMENTS, INC., Defendant. Plaintiff Lawrence Ianetta ("Ianetta") sues Putnam Investments, Inc., alleging sexual harassment and retaliation in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act Of 1964 ("Title VII")[1], and Mass.Gen Laws ch. [25] On February 24, 1999, Ianetta filed a complaint with the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination ("MCAD") alleging discrimination based on sex and sexual orientation.Putnam may more.

Summary: 392 F. Supp. On February 10, 1975, hearings were commenced at the Massachusetts Correctional Institution, Walpole, on the motion for a preliminary injunction, and continued at the courthouse on the alleged violation of Eighth Amendment Rights on February 11, 12 and 13. At the hearing at Walpole on February 10, 1975, the Court took a view of Cell Blocks B-8, B-4, A-1 and 10. FINDINGS OF FACT A. Background For some years the Massachusetts Correctional Institution at Walpole (hereinafter referred more.

Summary: 58 F. Supp. The first license agreement (hereinafter referred to as the Ful-Vue license) was entered into May 25, 1934, and authorizes the New Jersey Optical Company to make, use and sell the inventions covered by two U. S. patents — the Emons, re-issue, No. 17994, and the Smith, re-issue, No. 17996. No allegedly illegal provisions are found in the terms of the E-Z-Mont license itself but the defendant maintains that the illegal elements in the Ful-Vue agreement have also become a part of the more.

Summary: 186 F. Supp. 2d 1 (2002) JOHN G. DANIELSON, INC., Plaintiff, v. WINCHESTER-CONANT PROPERTIES, INC. and the Willows at Winchester, LLC, Defendants. John G. Danielson, Inc. ("Danielson"), an architectural firm located in Lexington, *4 Massachusetts, brings this action against Winchester-Conant Properties, Inc. ("Winchester-Conant") and The Willows at Winchester, LLC ("Willows LLC") (collectively "Winchester-Willows"), for copyright infringement under the Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. § 101 et seq. ( more.

Summary: 983 F. Supp. On March 3, 1997, the plaintiff, Edgardo Herrera ("Herrera") filed the present action against his former employer, Boyd Coating Research Company, Inc. ("Boyd"), his former supervisor, Richard W. Brodeur ("Brodeur"), and Boyd's Vice President, Donald Garcia ("Garcia") alleging religious discrimination in violation of both M.G.L. c. 151B, § 4 ("Chapter 151B") and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq. ("Title VII"). Tomka v. Seiler Corp., 66 F.3d 1295 ( more.

Summary: 679 F. Supp. See, e.g., U.S. v. Brenes, 250 F.3d 290, 293-94 (5th Cir.2001) (requiring proffer before commencement of sentencing hearing, reversing lower court's reduction of sentence pursuant to proffer made during the hearing); U.S. v. Brownlee, 204 F.3d 1302, 1305 (11th Cir.2000) (requiring proffer "not later than the commencement of the sentencing hearing"); U.S. v. Schreiber, 191 F.3d 103, 107 (2nd Cir.1999) ("the deadline for compliance should be set at the time of the commencement of the more.