hard and fast rule in Massachusetts

2014The establishment of a clearly defined rule of action would be the end of discretion, and yet discretion should not be a word for arbitrary will or inconsiderate action. ‘Discretion means a decision of what is just and proper under the circumstances.’ The Styria v. Morgan, 186 U.S. 1, 9 [(1902)], quoted in Paquette v. Fall River, 278 Mass. 172, 174 [(1932)].” Long v. George, 296 Mass. 574, 578 (1937).

2003Long v. George, 296 Mass. 574, 578 (1937), quoting from Paquette v. Fall River, 278 Mass. 172, 174 (1932).

2014The establishment of a clearly defined rule of action would be the end of discretion, and yet discretion should not be a word for arbitrary will or inconsiderate action. ‘Discretion means a decision of what is just and proper under the circumstances.’ The Styria v. Morgan, 186 U.S. 1, 9 [(1902)], quoted in Paquette v. Fall River, 278 Mass. 172, 174 [(1932)].” Long v. George, 296 Mass. 574, 578 (1937).

1941And discretion “implies the absence of a hard-and-fast rule.” Long v. George, 296 Mass. 574, 578 .

2014The establishment of a clearly defined rule of action would be the end of discretion, and yet discretion should not be a word for arbitrary will or inconsiderate action. ‘Discretion means a decision of what is just and proper under the circumstances.’ The Styria v. Morgan, 186 U.S. 1, 9 [(1902)], quoted in Paquette v. Fall River, 278 Mass. 172, 174 [(1932)].” Long v. George, 296 Mass. 574, 578 (1937).

1937The establishment of a clearly defined rule of action would be the end of discretion, and yet discretion should not be a word for arbitrary will or inconsiderate action. 'Discretion means a decision of what is just and proper in the circumstances.’” The Styria v. Morgan, 186 U. S. 1, 9 , quoted in Paquette v. Fall River, 278 Mass. 172, 174 .

1990See McCray v. Illinois, supra at 308 (it should rest entirely with judge who hears motion to decide whether officer is believable witness); Commonwealth v. Abdelnour, 11 Mass. App. Ct. 531, 535 (1981), and cases cited.

1990See McCray v. Illinois, supra at 308 (it should rest entirely with judge who hears motion to decide whether officer is believable witness); Commonwealth v. Abdelnour, 11 Mass. App. Ct. 531, 535 (1981), and cases cited.

2012See, e.g., Sellers’s Case, 452 Mass. 804, 812-813 (2008).

2000The Court has not articulated a hard and fast rule regarding the length or type of sanction that would give rise to an “atypical and significant hardship.” The court has suggested, however, that “this standard will not be met unless the disciplinary and administrative sanctions are onerous.” Jenkins v. Haubert, 179 F.3d 19, 28 (2nd Cir. 1999); see Sandin, 515 U.S. at 486 .

2000See Klein v. Catalano, 386 Mass. 701, 710 (1982) (discussing statute of repose found in G.L.c. 260, §2B).

2000The Court has not articulated a hard and fast rule regarding the length or type of sanction that would give rise to an “atypical and significant hardship.” The court has suggested, however, that “this standard will not be met unless the disciplinary and administrative sanctions are onerous.” Jenkins v. Haubert, 179 F.3d 19, 28 (2nd Cir. 1999); see Sandin, 515 U.S. at 486 .

1993In Southworth v. Treadwell, 168 Mass. 511, 512-513 (1897), the court held that remarriage was a material change of circumstances giving one a right to look for support from the new spouse and that “[i]n the absence of proof that this right was not adequate to all her needs” {id. at 513), a decree effectively eliminating the former wife’s alimony by reducing it to a nominal sum was warranted.

1993Herron v. Herron, 255 F.2d 589, 593 (5th Cir.1958).

1990See McCray v. Illinois, supra at 308 (it should rest entirely with judge who hears motion to decide whether officer is believable witness); Commonwealth v. Abdelnour, 11 Mass. App. Ct. 531, 535 (1981), and cases cited.

1990See McCray v. Illinois, supra at 308 (it should rest entirely with judge who hears motion to decide whether officer is believable witness); Commonwealth v. Abdelnour, 11 Mass. App. Ct. 531, 535 (1981), and cases cited.

1985Later that day, when the defendant picked up the complainant in a bar (around 6:45 p.m.), he did not use either the name “Wateman” or his legal name, but instead introduced himself as “Spoiler.” Without adopting a hard and fast rule that the use of a false name, to be admissible as evidence of consciousness of guilt, must follow rather that precede the crime (see, e.g., United States v. Sutton, 446 F.2d 916, 922-923 [9th Cir. 1971], cert. denied, 404 U.S. 1025 [1972]; United States v. Tashjian, 660 F.2d 829, 842-844 [1st Cir.], cert. denied sub nom.

1985Campbell v. United States, 454 U.S. 1102 [1981]; United States v. Birges, 723 F.2d 666, 669, 672 [9th Cir.], cert. denied, 466 U.S. 943 [1984]), the panel are of opinion that the incidents in the afternoon were not shown to bear a relation to a crime that, so far as may fairly be surmised from the evidence, was not then even in contemplation.

1985Later that day, when the defendant picked up the complainant in a bar (around 6:45 p.m.), he did not use either the name “Wateman” or his legal name, but instead introduced himself as “Spoiler.” Without adopting a hard and fast rule that the use of a false name, to be admissible as evidence of consciousness of guilt, must follow rather that precede the crime (see, e.g., United States v. Sutton, 446 F.2d 916, 922-923 [9th Cir. 1971], cert. denied, 404 U.S. 1025 [1972]; United States v. Tashjian, 660 F.2d 829, 842-844 [1st Cir.], cert. denied sub nom.

1981As stated by the Court in McCray . “[I]t should rest entirely with the judge who hears the motion to suppress to decide whether he needs such disclosure as to the informant in order to decide whether the officer is a believe-able witness.” McCray v. Illinois, supra at 308 , quoting from State v. Burnett, 42 N.J. 377, 388 (1964).

1981However, rather than setting down a hard and fast rule prohibiting disclosure in all warrant affidavit cases no matter what the circumstances (see United States v. Freund, 525 F.2d 873, 877 [5th Cir.], cert. denied, 426 U.S. 923 [1976]; see also discussion in 2 Louisell & Mueller, Federal Evidence § 236, at 820-823 [1978]; 1 LaFave, Search and Seizure § 3.3, at 574-575 [1978]), these cases leave disclosure to the sound discretion of the judge handling the motion.

1975Rather than postulate a hard and fast test for necessary medical expenses under § 6D, which is different in degree from that generally applied in negligence cases for restitution of medical expenses, we refer to our holdings in Hunt v. Boston Terminal Co. 212 Mass. 99, 101 (1912), where we rejected the test that a physician’s services be “in fact” necessary and further stated: “The event may have shown them [the medical services] to be unnecessary, and yet they may have been wise in the light of facts known at the time they were rendered.” We reject the defendant’s argument that the Legislatur

1975As we made clear in Pinnick v. Cleary, supra, at 6, 28 , the no-fault statute was not intended to abrogate common law principles of damages, generally: “[T]he Legislature has acted with extreme *408 caution in altering prior legal rights, changing in only one respect the elements of damage which are recoverable by the victim.” The purpose of the Legislature was to close off “minor claims for pain and suffering”; it was not the purpose of the Legislature to preclude meritorious claims by imposing rigid standards and a heavy burden of proof unknown to traditional negligence suits for compensatio