Ahern v. Scholz

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• noting that the Chapter 93A calculus considers “the equities between the parties, including what both parties knew or should have known”
• determining that proper review of a district court’s new trial ruling for clear abuse of discretion includes “iso- lat[ing] the factual basis for the trial court’s ruling” and not “assessing the credibility of witnesses and weighing testi- mony”
• noting that an error does not \rise[] to the level of harmful error if . . . 'the evidence omitted was cumulative as to other admitted evidence'\ (quoting Doty v. Sewall, 908 F.2d 1053, 1057 (1st Cir. 1990))
• affirming the denial of a continuance for the purpose of obtaining new counsel and commenting that even if the district court abused its discretion, “the error was harmless”
• “[T]he statute does not contemplate an overly precise standard of ethical or moral behavior. It is the standard of the commercial marketplace.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)
• “The simple fact that a party knowingly breached a contract does not raise the breach to the level of a Chapter 93A violation”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).