Legal Opinion
Blare v. Husky Injection Molding Systems Boston, Inc.
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Decided February 9, 1995PublishedCited by 300 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtAbrams, J.
At issue is whether the Superior Court judge applied the appropriate standard in allowing the defendants’ motions for summary judgment in a case alleging age discrimination under G. L. c. 151B (1992 ed.), and G. L. c. 93, § 103 (1992 ed.).2 For the reasons stated in this opinion, we conclude that the defendants’ motions for summary judgment should not have been allowed. We reverse and remand for further proceedings.
1. Facts. Reviewing the materials submitted for the summary judgment motion in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party (Blare), Wheatley v. American Tel. & Tel. Co., 418…
2Cases cited29 opinions
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. GreenSupreme Court of the United States · 1973
- Texas Department of Community Affairs v. BurdineSupreme Court of the United States · 1981
- Anderson v. City of Bessemer CitySupreme Court of the United States · 1985
- St. Mary's Honor Center v. HicksSupreme Court of the United States · 1993
- Furnco Construction Corp. v. WatersSupreme Court of the United States · 1978
24 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by300 opinions
- Ollie LATTIMORE, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. POLAROID CORPORATION, Defendant-AppellantCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1996
- Thompson v. Coca-Cola Co.Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · 2008
- Matthews v. Ocean Spray Cranberries, Inc.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1997
- Gu v. Boston Police DepartmentCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 2002
- Bulwer v. Mount Auburn HospitalMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 2016
295 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.