To embed, copy and paste the code into your website or blog:
This first known decision interpreting the statute clarifies the consequences of an Owner’s failure to properly reject applications for payment.
A recent first-of-its-kind ruling from the Massachusetts Superior Court provides a critical lesson for project owners and contractors concerning the Massachusetts Prompt Payment Act (the “Prompt Pay Act”). In
Tocci v. IRIV Partners, LLC, et al., Suffolk Superior Court, 19CV000405 (November 19, 2020), the Court awarded over $4 million to a contractor as a result of the project owner’s failure to timely and properly reject the contractor’s applications for payment in accordance with the Prompt Pay Act. In so doing, the Court held that the Prompt Pay Act
The A. J. Gordon Memorial Chapel at Gordon College, a Christian academic institution located in Wenham, Massachusetts. | (Photo: Mark Spooner)
The highest court in Massachusetts heard oral arguments on Monday regarding whether an evangelical Christian higher education institution can lawfully refuse to promote a former professor who held pro-LGBT views.
The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court heard arguments virtually over a lawsuit filed against Gordon College by former associate professor Margaret DeWeese-Boyd.
At issue is whether Gordon, founded in 1889, could lawfully deny a promotion to DeWeese-Boyd by citing the “ministerial exception,” a legal principle that allows religious bodies to choose their own ministerial staff with exemption from employment discrimination law.
Exxon Calls Massachusetts Fraud Suit Punishment for Opinion By Erik Larson | December 17, 2020
Exxon Mobil Corp. told a judge that a fraud lawsuit filed by Massachusetts last year amounts to illegal punishment for the energy giant’s views about fossil fuels, the latest twist in their bitter clash over climate change.
The suit by Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey should be dismissed because it violates a state law prohibiting litigation that has the effect of punishing a defendant for statements on public policy matters, Exxon said in a July motion made public Wednesday in state court in Boston.
Exxon’s filing revisited allegations it has made repeatedly against Healey and other state officials who’ve investigated the company’s public statements on climate change and its potential impact on the business as well as government efforts to go green.
To embed, copy and paste the code into your website or blog:
In a recent decision likely to have a significant impact upon the way private construction projects in Massachusetts are managed, the Superior Court recently construed the Massachusetts Prompt Pay Statute in the way the Statute (Statute) was meant to be enforced, but contrary to most current construction practice.
In
Tocci Building Corp. v. IRIV Partners, LLC, Boston Harbor Industrial Development, LLC and Hudson Insurance Co., (November 19, 2020, Sup.Ct. 19-405), the Court strictly construed the Statute’s payment provisions against a project’s owner/manager (O/M), ordering the O/M to pay the contractor the outstanding balance on several unpaid requisitions because the O/M failed to comply with certain of the Statute’s requirements.
ExxonMobil told a judge that a fraud lawsuit filed by Massachusetts last year amounts to illegal punishment for the energy giant s views about fossil fuels.
(Bloomberg) Exxon Mobil Corp. told a judge that a fraud lawsuit filed by Massachusetts last year amounts to illegal punishment for the energy giant’s views about fossil fuels, the latest twist in their bitter clash over climate change.
The suit by Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey should be dismissed because it violates a state law prohibiting litigation that has the effect of punishing a defendant for statements on public policy matters, Exxon said in a July motion made public Wednesday in state court in Boston.