Circuit. See, e.g., Situation Mgmt. Sys., Inc. v. ASP Consulting LLC, 560 F.3d 53, 58 (1st Cir.2009); Continental Grain Co. v. Puerto Rico Maritime Shipping Auth., 972 F.2d 426, 429 n. 7 (1st Cir.1992); Boston Five Cents Sav. Bank v. Sec’y of Dep’t of Hous. and Urban Dev., 768 F.2d 5, 11-12 (1st Cir.1985); Bunch v. W.R. Grace & Co., 532 F.Supp.2d 283, 286-87 (D.Mass.2008). It is a most helpful procedural device. In this session of the Court, it works like this: whenever cross motions for summary judgment reveal that the relevant facts appear without significant dispute, the courtroom deputy clerk offers the parties to treat the case as a case stated. Should they accept, as was the case here, the Court treats the undisputed facts as the established record and draws the reaso . 1998) (<HOLDING>). Neither interpretation of the statute’s plain
holding that plaintiffs have a cause of action under 42 usc  1983 where state created an experimental home and communitybased medical program but placed plaintiffs on the waiting list holding that plaintiffs had claim under 42 usc  1983 against state where state had created an intermediate care facility but placed plaintiffs on waiting list holding that a state is not a person under 42 usc  1983 holding that suits under 42 usc  1983 do not override state immunity holding that plaintiff had failed to state a claim for relief under section 1983