Massachusetts Parole Board, 18 MCSR 216 (2005). Accord Milliken & Co., v. Duro Textiles LLC, 451 Mass. 547, 550 n.6 (2008); Maimonides School v. Coles, 71 Mass. App. Ct. 240, 249 (2008). See also Iannacchino v. Ford Motor Company, 451 Mass. 623, 635-636 (2008) (discussing standard for deciding motions to dismiss); cf. R.J.A. v. K.A.V., 406 Mass. 698 (1990) (factual issues bearing on plaintiffs standing required denial of motion to dismiss).
Massachusetts Parole Board, 18 MCSR 216 (2005). cf. Milliken & Co., v. Duro Textiles LLC, 451 Mass. 547, 550n.6, 887 N.E.2d 244, 250 (2008); Maimonides School v. Coles, 71 Mass.App.Ct. 240, 249, 881 N.E.2d 778, 786-87 (2008) Specifically, this motion to dismiss for lack of standing must be allowed unless the Mr. Dinicola raises above the speculative level sufficient facts plausibly suggesting 4 See, e.g., See also Connelly v.
of imprisonment of 5 years or more, for 10 years following the disposition thereof, including termination of any period of incarceration or custody; (ii) information indicating custody status andplacement within the correction system for an individual who has been convicted of any offense and sentenced to any term of imprisonment, and at the time of the request: is serving a sentence of probation or incarceration, or is under the custody of the parole
department, board, commission, division or authority of the state government or subdivision of any of the foregoing, or official of the state government, authorized by law to make regulations or to conduct adjudicatory proceedings, but does not include the following: the legislative and judicial departments; the governor and council; military or naval boards, commissions or officials; the department of correction; the department of youth services; the parole
Massachusetts Parole Board, 18 MCSR 216 (2005). cf. Milliken & Co., v. Duro Textiles LLC, 451 Mass. 547, 550n.6, (2008); Maimonides School v. Coles, 71 Mass.App.Ct. 240, 249 (2008) Specifically, a motion to dismiss for lack of standing must allowed when the appellant fails to raise above the speculative level sufficient facts plausibly suggesting that Ms.
Massachusetts Parole Board, 18 MCSR 216 (2005); cf. Milliken & Co., v. Duro Textiles LLC, 451 Mass. 547, 550n.6, 887 N.E.2d 244, 250 (2008); Maimonides School v. Coles, 71 Mass.App.Ct. 240, 249, 881 N.E.2d 778, 786-87 (2008) Specifically, this motion to dismiss must allowed when the Appellant fails to raise above the speculative level sufficient facts plausibly suggesting that Mr.
Massachusetts Parole Board, 18 MCSR 216 (2005) The notion underlying the summary decision process in administrative proceedings parallels the civil practice under Mass.R.Civ.P.56, namely, when no genuine issues of material fact exist, the agency is not required to conduct a meaningless hearing. See Catlin v. Board of Registration of Architects, 414 Mass. 1, 7 (1992); Massachusetts Outdoor Advertising Counsel v.
Massachusetts Parole Board, 18 MCSR 216 (2005) Applicable Civil Service Law G.L.c.31, 35,6 governs the voluntary transfer of a civil service employee from one position to another and provides: Any permanent employee in a department unit may apply in writing to his appointing authority for transfer to a similar position within such unit or may apply in writing to the appointing authorities for such unit and for any other departmental unit for transfer
Massachusetts Parole Board, 18 MCSR 216 (2005) Applicable Civil Service Law G.L.c.31, 35,6 governs the voluntary transfer of a civil service employee from one position to another and provides: Any permanent employee in a department unit may apply in writing to his appointing authority for transfer to a similar position within such unit or may apply in writing to the appointing authorities for such unit and for any other departmental unit for transfer