case-by-case analysis in Massachusetts

2008The Supreme Judicial Court expressly limited the application of the rule to the facts in Amendola , i.e., automobile searches, and to the facts of Jones , i.e., house searches, and left for “a case by case analysis the question whether the rule should be extended to other circumstances where possession crimes are in issue.” Commonwealth v. Amendola, supra at 601 n.4.

1991We left "to a case by case analysis the question whether the rule should be extended to other circumstances where possession crimes are in issue." Id.

2024Here, given the defendant's challenge on appeal, we need only address the first issue, the propriety of the impoundment. 3 The "nature of the impoundment decision . . . requires the police to act reasonably and 'necessitates a case-by-case analysis that takes into account the numerous and varied situations in which decisions to impound are made.'" Oliveira, 474 Mass. at 16 , quoting Commonwealth v. Eddington, 459 Mass. 102 , 109 n.12 (2011). "[A] vehicle may be seized for one of at least four legitimate purposes: to protect the vehicle and its contents from theft or vandalism; to protect the p

2024Oliveira, 474 Mass. at 13 .

2024Boston Globe Media Partners, LLC, supra. Whether an exemption applies requires a case-by-case analysis.

2018Our analysis of what constitutes an unfair or deceptive act or practice requires a case-by-case analysis, see Kattar v. Demoulas , 433 Mass. 1 , 14, 739 N.E.2d 246 (2000), and is neither dependent on traditional concepts nor limited by preexisting rights or remedies.

2018Travis v. McDonald , 397 Mass. 230 , 232, 490 N.E.2d 1169 (1986).

2018Travis v. McDonald , 397 Mass. 230 , 232, 490 N.E.2d 1169 (1986).

2008“Determining whether an action is materially adverse necessarily requires a case-by-case inquiry . . . cast in objective terms.” Blackie, 75 F.3d at 725 .

2007If they do seek eviction, [public housing authorities] should be prepared to persuade a court that eviction is justified.” Rucker v. Davis, 203 F.3d 627, 639-640 (9th Cir. 2000), rev’d, 535 U.S. 125 (2002) quoting United States Department of Housing and Urban Development, “One Strike and You’re Out:” Policy in Public Housing 7-8 (1996).

2004We think the development of the law in this respect is best left to a case-by-case analysis.” Daugherty v. Daugherty, supra. We thus are not adhering solely to the use of one formula over another.

2003Ibid.

2003See Commonwealth v. Matchett, 386 Mass. 492, 505 (1982); Commonwealth v. Claudio, supra. 7 Rather than resting upon inscription in a per se classification, the decision whether a particular felony is inherently dangerous or reflects conscious disregard for the risk to human life so as to justify invocation of the felony-murder doctrine rests upon a case-by-case analysis of the nucleus of facts in which that felony is embedded.

2001The Academy need not “adjust its expectations, based on a case-by-case analysis of an at-will employee’s [fears for her or his health], or face liability for having discharged the employee.” Upton v. JWP Businessland, 425 Mass. at 760 . 3.

1993The Frazier case notes that in Commonwealth v. Arriendala the Supreme Judicial Court adopted the automatic standing rule of Jones v. U.S., 362 U.S. 257 (1960), for searches of automobiles and houses, but left “to a case-by-case analysis the question of whether the rule should be extended to other circumstances where possession crimes are an issue.” Frazier, supra at 243 .

1993The Frazier case notes that in Commonwealth v. Arriendala the Supreme Judicial Court adopted the automatic standing rule of Jones v. U.S., 362 U.S. 257 (1960), for searches of automobiles and houses, but left “to a case-by-case analysis the question of whether the rule should be extended to other circumstances where possession crimes are an issue.” Frazier, supra at 243 .

1982See Chipman v. Mercer, 628 F.2d 528, 530 (9th Cir. 1980); United States v. Rogers, 549 F.2d 490, 501-502 (8th Cir. 1976), cert. denied, 431 U.S. 918 (1977).