beginning hearing in Massachusetts

2019See Spinelli v. United States, 393 U.S. 410 (1969); Aguilar v. Texas, 378 U.S. 108 (1964).

2017See Aguilar v. Texas , 378 U.S. 108 (1964) ; Spinelli v. United States , 393 U.S. 410 (1969).

2019See Spinelli v. United States, 393 U.S. 410 (1969); Aguilar v. Texas, 378 U.S. 108 (1964).

2017See Aguilar v. Texas , 378 U.S. 108 (1964) ; Spinelli v. United States , 393 U.S. 410 (1969).

2026See, e.g., Furtado v. Furtado, 380 Mass. 137 , 140 n.2 (1980) (allegations of defendant's defiance must be "referred to in the complaint"); Sodones v. Sodones, 366 Mass. 121, 129 (1974) (defendant must be informed "prior to the beginning of the hearing, where, when, or in what manner he had violated the order"); Mills v. Mills, 4 Mass. App. Ct. 273, 278 (1976) ("only contempt which has been charged" in complaint may be considered).

2026See, e.g., Furtado v. Furtado, 380 Mass. 137 , 140 n.2 (1980) (allegations of defendant's defiance must be "referred to in the complaint"); Sodones v. Sodones, 366 Mass. 121, 129 (1974) (defendant must be informed "prior to the beginning of the hearing, where, when, or in what manner he had violated the order"); Mills v. Mills, 4 Mass. App. Ct. 273, 278 (1976) ("only contempt which has been charged" in complaint may be considered).

2026See, e.g., Furtado v. Furtado, 380 Mass. 137 , 140 n.2 (1980) (allegations of defendant's defiance must be "referred to in the complaint"); Sodones v. Sodones, 366 Mass. 121, 129 (1974) (defendant must be informed "prior to the beginning of the hearing, where, when, or in what manner he had violated the order"); Mills v. Mills, 4 Mass. App. Ct. 273, 278 (1976) ("only contempt which has been charged" in complaint may be considered).

2019See Ladd v. Polidoro, 424 Mass. 196, 200 (1997) ("Where success or failure depends on the credibility of contesting parties, a litigant should not be subjected to the risk that, if the jury reject his or her position, that same jury [or another one] will conclude that he or she knew from the beginning that the claim was groundless").

2019See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Colantoni , 396 Mass. 672 , 680 (1986).

2011Or, as the Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit stated in Ashley v. McKenna, 331 F.3d 1148, 1152 (10th Cir. 2003): “we can say with confidence that an entiy of default against Crowley, LLC before it had any obligation to answer would have been incorrect as a matter of law.” The plaintiffs attorney at the beginning of the hearing indicated that he believed that damages should be assessed on a default judgment in an amount over $2.5 million dollars.

1999The impartial medical examiner, so agreed upon or appointed, shall examine the employee and make a report at least one week prior to the beginning of the hearing, which shall be sent to each party.” (Emphasis supplied.) “[I]n construing a statute, its words must be given their plain and ordinary meaning according to the approved usage of language.” Johnson’s Case, 318 Mass. 741, 747 (1945).

1999Here, the statute states that where an aggrieved party’s claim involves a disputed medical question, the impartial medical examiner’s role is to examine the employee in order to “evaluate [his] condition and set forth his or her findings in a report.” O’Brien’s Case, 424 Mass. 16, 21 (1996).

1984See Dittemore v. Dickey, 249 Mass. 95, 99-100 (1924) (master did not prejudge case merely because in another related case he made findings on a factual issue adverse to claims of present defendant).

1984See Dittemore v. Dickey, 249 Mass. 95, 99-100 (1924) (master did not prejudge case merely because in another related case he made findings on a factual issue adverse to claims of present defendant). [5] The defendant first raises this issue on appeal.