414 Mass. at 686 Appellate review of grounds apparent on record66 citing casesIt is well established that, on appeal, we may consider any ground apparent on the record that supports the result reached in the lower court
- Garth James-Duncan v. Joel Brooks., 274 N.E.3d 1103 (Mass. App. Ct. 2026).unpublished(we may consider any ground 5 apparent on the record that supports the result reached in the lower court)
- HSBC Bank USA, N.a., Tr. v. Tommy L. Morris & Another., No. 24-P-1073 (Mass. App. Ct. Dec. 16, 2025).unpublished(It is well established that, on appeal, we may consider any ground apparent on the record that supports the result reached in the lower court)
- Wayne P. Capolupo v. Camille Miragliotta Daly, Pers. Rep., & Others., 267 N.E.3d 1177 (Mass. App. Ct. 2025).unpublished(It is well established that, on appeal, [this court] may consider any ground apparent on the record that supports the result reached in the lower court)
- Joseph E. Szawlowski, Tr. v. George W. Price & Others., 240 N.E.3d 799 (Mass. App. Ct. 2024).unpublished(It is well established that, on appeal, we may consider any ground apparent on the record that supports the result reached in the lower court)
- Rayan Toby v. Greater Boston Legal Servs.., No. 23-P-0252 (Mass. App. Ct. Mar. 7, 2024).unpublished([i]t is well established that, on appeal, we may consider any ground apparent on the record that supports the result reached in the lower court)
- Rc Int'l Temp Servs., Inc. v. Coliseum Companies, Inc., 205 N.E.3d 378 (Mass. App. Ct. 2023).unpublished(We may affirm the judgment on 'any ground apparent on the record that supports the result reached in the [trial] court')
- Commonwealth v. Walczak, 979 N.E.2d 732 (Mass. 2012).published(on appeal [an appellate court] may consider any ground apparent on the record that supports the result reached in the lower court)
- Okoli v. Okoli, 963 N.E.2d 737 (Mass. App. Ct. 2012).published“n appeal an appellate court may consider any ground apparent on the record that supports the result reached in the lower court”
- Sutton v. Valois, 846 N.E.2d 1171 (Mass. App. Ct. 2006).published([i]t is well established that, on appeal, we may consider any ground apparent on the record that supports the result reached in the lower court)
- Kuban v. Kuban, 721 N.E.2d 393 (Mass. App. Ct. 1999).published([Ojn appeal, we may consider any ground apparent on the record that supports the result reached in the lower court)
Show 56 more citing cases
- Demeo v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins., 649 N.E.2d 803 (Mass. App. Ct. 1995).published(It is well established that, on appeal, we may consider any ground apparent on the record that supports the result reached in the lower court)
- Buffalo-Water 1, LLC v. Fid. Real Est. Co., LLC, 111 N.E.3d 266 (Mass. 2018).published(on appeal, we may consider any ground apparent on the record that supports the result reached in the lower court)
- Stotsky-Hilman v. Dietrich, 103 N.E.3d 766 (Mass. App. Ct. 2018).published([O]n appeal, we may consider any ground apparent on the record that supports the result reached in the lower court)
- Sullivan v. Superintendent, 102 N.E.3d 1032 (Mass. App. Ct. 2018).published([O]n appeal, we may consider any ground apparent on the record that supports the result reached in the lower court)
- Hasouris v. Sorour, 91 N.E.3d 688 (Mass. App. Ct. 2018).published(It is well established that, on appeal, we may consider any ground apparent on the record that supports the result reached in the lower court)
- Charles Kim v. Syk Biosciences LLC & Others., 277 N.E.3d 1035 (Mass. App. Ct. 2026).unpublishedGabbidon v. King, 414 Mass. 685, 686 (1993).
- John J. Jordan & Another v. Cea Grp., Inc., & Others; Prellwitz Chilinski Assocs., Inc., Third-party, 277 N.E.3d 1029 (Mass. App. Ct. 2026).unpublished Gabbidon v. King, 414 Mass. 685, 686 (1993), quoting Mass. R.
- Natasha Frodel & Another v. Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co. & Another., 272 N.E.3d 1103 (Mass. App. Ct. 2025).unpublished“it is well-established that, on appeal, we may consider any ground apparent in the record that supports the result reached in the lower court”
- Athol Police Dep't v. Christopher K. Hart., 263 N.E.3d 251 (Mass. App. Ct. 2025).unpublishedWe, however, can affirm the final ruling on "any ground apparent on the record." Adoption of Franklin, 99 Mass. App. Ct. 787 , 802 (2021), citing Gabbidon v. King, 414 Mass. 685, 686 (1993). 6 We note that the Athol Police Department did n…
- J.M. v. A.M., 263 N.E.3d 243 (Mass. App. Ct. 2025).unpublishedThe language of paragraph twenty provides that the husband shall "maintain" his "current" health insurance policy for "so long as" the parties' children and the wife "are eligible to be covered." Because the husband's health insurance laps…
- Nationstar Mortg. LLC v. Richard Zeuli & Others., 263 N.E.3d 234 (Mass. App. Ct. 2025).unpublishedLopes v. Commonwealth, 442 Mass. 170, 181 (2004), quoting Gabbidon v. King, 414 Mass. 685, 686 (1993). 7 (2025); 5 Nationstar did not advance an alternative argument that the 2016 LMA, even if supported by valid consideration, nevertheless…
- USAA Cas. Ins. Co. v. Dodd, No. 1:24-cv-10430 (D. Mass. June 17, 2025).(parallel rule under Massachusetts law “is intended to be used in situations of indemnity or possible contribution)
- Dana M. Chiles, Tr. v. Thomas W. Littauer., 247 N.E.3d 859 (Mass. App. Ct. 2024).unpublishedAlthough we may affirm "on any ground supported by the record," Clair v. Clair, 464 Mass. 205, 214 (2013), quoting Gabbidon v. King, 414 Mass. 685, 686 (1993), here the record is not sufficient to conclude as a matter of law that the trust…
- Ferreira v. Charland, 103 Mass. App. Ct. 194 (Mass. App. Ct. 2023).published “support[] the result reached in the lower court”
- Ann M. O'keeffe v. Dwyer & Duddy, P.c., & Another., 183 N.E.3d 437 (Mass. App. Ct. 2022).publishedOur review is de novo, and "we may affirm 'on any ground apparent on the record.'" O'Connor v. Kadrmas, 96 Mass. App. Ct. 273 , 289 (2019), quoting Gabbidon v. King, 414 Mass. 685, 686 (1993).
- O'Connor v. Kadrmas, 96 Mass. App. Ct. 273 (Mass. App. Ct. 2019).published“any ground apparent on the record that supports the result reached in the [trial] court”
- Silva v. Steadfast Ins. Co., 35 N.E.3d 401 (Mass. App. Ct. 2015).publishedCo., 38 Mass. App. Ct. 955, 956 (1995), quoting from Gabbidon v. King, 414 Mass. 685, 686 (1993). 2.
- Feeney v. Dell Inc., 465 Mass. 470 (2013).published“we may consider any ground apparent on the record that supports the result reached in the lower court”
- Clair v. Clair, 982 N.E.2d 32 (Mass. 2013).published“It is well established that, on appeal, we may consider any ground apparent on the record that supports the result reached in the lower court”
- Devaney v. Affiliated Ins. Managers, Inc., 30 Mass. L. Rptr. 21 (Mass. Super. Ct. 2012).published“intended to be used in situations of indemnity or possible contribution”
- Cornell v. Michaud, 947 N.E.2d 1138 (Mass. App. Ct. 2011).publishedWe may, however, “affirm a judgment as long as the result is correct on any ground apparent on the record that supports the result reached by the trial court.” Colony of Wellfleet, Inc. v. Harris, 71 Mass. App. Ct. 522, 529 (2008), citing…
- Alexander v. Daley, 28 Mass. L. Rptr. 186 (Mass. Super. Ct. 2011).published“The rule is intended to be used in situations of indemnity or possible contribution”
- W.Y.N.N. v. Rudack, 25 Mass. L. Rptr. 587 (Mass. Super. Ct. 2009).published“[i]t is well established that, on appeal, [the court] may consider any ground apparent on the record that supports the result reached in the lower court”
- Feeney v. Dell Inc., 908 N.E.2d 753 (Mass. 2009).publishedGabbidon v. King, 414 Mass. 685, 686 (1993), citing Aetna Cas. & Sur.
- Colony of Wellfleet, Inc. v. Harris, 883 N.E.2d 1235 (Mass. App. Ct. 2008).publishedGabbidon v. King, 414 Mass. 685, 686 (1993).
- Demoulas Super Markets, Inc. v. Ryan, 873 N.E.2d 1168 (Mass. App. Ct. 2007).publishedAssn., 419 Mass. 782, 789 (1995), quoting from Gabbidon v. King, 414 Mass. 685, 686 (1993).
- Vasquez v. Potter & Co., 2007 Mass. App. Div. 26 (Mass. Dist. Ct., App. Div. 2007).published“It is well established that, on appeal, we may consider any ground apparent on the record that supports the result reached in the [trial] court”
- Grandmaison ex rel. Grandmaison v. Fiesta Shows, Inc., 21 Mass. L. Rptr. 129 (Mass. Super. Ct. 2006).publishedGabbidon v. King, 414 Mass. 685, 686 (1993).
- United Health v. Com. Ins., 2005 Mass. App. Div. 115 (Mass. Dist. Ct., App. Div. 2005).published“It is well established that, on appeal, we may consider any ground apparent on the record that supports the result reached in the [trial] court”
- Repub. Franklin Ins. v. Advanced Ironworks, Inc., 19 Mass. L. Rptr. 103 (Mass. Super. Ct. 2005).published Gabbidon v. King, 414 Mass. 685, 686-87 (1993).
- Newton v. Comm'r of the Dep't of Youth Servs., 62 Mass. App. Ct. 343 (Mass. App. Ct. 2004).publishedGabbidon v. King, 414 Mass. 685, 686 (1993).
- Lopes v. Commonwealth, 811 N.E.2d 501 (Mass. 2004).published“any ground apparent on the record that supports the result reached in the [trial] court”
- Commonwealth v. JEMS of New England, Inc., 15 Mass. L. Rptr. 65 (Mass. Super. Ct. 2002).publishedUnder Mass.R.Civ.P. 14, a defendant may join "a person who is or may be liable to him for all or part of the plaintiffs claim against him.” See Gabiddon v. King, 414 Mass. 685, 686-87 (1993).
- Fiske Capital Mgmt. Co. v. Qureshi, 2002 Mass. App. Div. 117 (Mass. Dist. Ct., App. Div. 2002).published“It is well established that, on appeal, we may consider any ground apparent on the record that supports the result reached in the lower court”
- Commonwealth v. Levesque, 766 N.E.2d 50 (Mass. 2002).published“on appeal [an appellate court] may consider any ground apparent on the record that supports the result reached in the lower court”
- Dorchester Mut. Fire Ins. v. First Kostas Corp., 731 N.E.2d 569 (Mass. App. Ct. 2000).published“It is well established that, on appeal, we may consider any ground apparent on the record that supports the result reached in the lower court”
- Williams v. Roche Bros. Supermarkets, Inc., 1999 Mass. App. Div. 174 (Mass. Dist. Ct., App. Div. 1999).publishedGabbidon v. King, Director of the Children’s Lead Poisoning Program, 414 Mass. 685, 686 (1993).
- Niles-Robinson v. Brigham & Women's Hosp., Inc., 711 N.E.2d 940 (Mass. App. Ct. 1999).published“[i]t is well established that, on appeal, we may consider any ground apparent on the record that supports the result reached in the lower court”
- Quintanilla v. City of Worcester, 9 Mass. L. Rptr. 309 (Mass. Super. Ct. 1998).published(Rule 14(a) “is intended to be used in situations of indemnity or possible contribution)
- Fay v. Fed. Nat'l Mortg. Ass'n, 647 N.E.2d 422 (Mass. 1995).published
- Mancuso v. Kinchla, 806 N.E.2d 427 (Mass. App. Ct. 2004).published
- Luyen Huu Nguyen v. Univ. of Massachusetts, 846 N.E.2d 1184 (Mass. App. Ct. 2006).published
- Loring Towers Assocs. v. Furtick, 6 N.E.3d 563 (Mass. App. Ct. 2014).published
- Tyrone Walker v. Juliane Pierre., 207 N.E.3d 535 (Mass. App. Ct. 2023).unpublished
- Hyejin Kwak v. Seth H. Bozarth., No. 22-P-0160 (Mass. App. Ct. Apr. 7, 2023).unpublished
- Bristol Asphalt Co., Inc. v. Rochester Bituminous Prods., Inc., 102 Mass. App. Ct. 522 (Mass. App. Ct. 2023).published
- Patricia Ivas v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Gloucester & Another., No. 22-P-1076 (Mass. App. Ct. July 26, 2023).unpublished
- Duane E. Galbi v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Wayland & Another., No. 22-P-1130 (Mass. App. Ct. Apr. 10, 2024).unpublished
- Rian Waters v. Aidan Kearney & Others., 235 N.E.3d 321 (Mass. App. Ct. 2024).unpublished
- Joseph O. Lavoie, Jr., & Another v. John a. Mcrae., 199 N.E.3d 469 (Mass. App. Ct. 2022).published
- Joseph Sieber & Others v. Conservation Comm'n of Edgartown., No. 24-P-0515 (Mass. App. Ct. Apr. 3, 2025).unpublished
- Whitton E. Norris, Third v. Julie a. Norris (& a Companion Case)., 259 N.E.3d 1111 (Mass. App. Ct. 2025).unpublished
- K.T. v. D.T., 265 N.E.3d 609 (Mass. App. Ct. 2025).unpublished
- Stanley Donald v. Carol Mici & Others., 267 N.E.3d 1179 (Mass. App. Ct. 2025).unpublished
- Casley Bailey v. Boston Fire Dep't., 273 N.E.3d 1221 (Mass. App. Ct. 2026).unpublished
- John Doe, Sex Offender Registry Bd. No. 119114 v. Sex Offender Registry Bd.., No. 25-P-0169 (Mass. App. Ct. Apr. 30, 2026).unpublished
414 Mass. at 687 affirming dismissal of third-party complaint1 citing case
- Whittier IPA, Inc. v. Steward Health Care Network, Inc., 34 Mass. L. Rptr. 155 (Suffolk Mass. Super. Ct. 2017).published(affirming dismissal of third-party complaint)
v.
Sylvia B. King & another Director of the Childhood Lead Poisoning Prevention Program, third-party
The Gabbidons commenced this action against their lessor (King) and her alleged agent claiming that their[*686] daughter Anna, who was under the age of six, had been harmed by lead in the leased premises. King filed a third-party complaint against the third-party defendant director seeking a declaration that lead poisoning regulations that the director had issued were unlawful. On motion of the director, a Superior Court judge, without a statement of reasons, dismissed the third-party complaint and entered a separate judgment of dismissal of the third-party complaint. We allowed King’s application for direct appellate review.
We affirm the judgment of dismissal on a ground that appears not to have been argued below but, in any event, warrants dismissal pursuant to Mass. R. Civ. P. 12 (b) (6), 365 Mass. 754 (1974). It is well established that, on appeal, we may consider any ground apparent on the record that supports the result reached in the lower court. See Aetna Casualty & Sur. Co. v. Continental Casualty Co., 413 Mass. 730, 734-735 (1992); St. Germaine v. Pendergast, 411 Mass. 615, 619 n.9 (1992); North Shore Corp. v. Selectmen of Topsfield, 322 Mass. 413, 416 (1948); Rosenfeld v. Board of Health of Chilmark, 27 Mass. App. Ct. 621, 626 n.10 (1989).
King’s right to assert a third-party claim against the director can be justified only if the conditions exist that are set forth in Mass. R. Civ. P. 14 (a), as amended, 385 Mass. 1216 (1982). That rule provides that “a defending party, as a third-party plaintiff, may . . . cause a summons and complaint to be served upon a person who is or may be liable to him for all or part of the plaintiff’s claim against him.” The rule is intended to be used in situations of indemnity or possible contribution. Reporters’ Notes to Mass. R. Civ. P. 15, Mass. Ann. Laws, Rules of Civil Procedure at 358 (1982). See Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Westerlind, 374 Mass. 524, 525 (1978) (allowance of motion to implead third party under rule 14 [a] “turns on whether [the third party] is or may be liable to [the defendant] for all or part of [the plaintiff’s] claim against [the defendant]”); J.W. Smith & H.B. Zobel, Rules Practice §§ 14.1, 14.7, 14.8 (1974). Under the substantively similar Federal rule (Fed. R. Civ. P. 14 [a]), “im[*687]pleader is available only against persons who are or may be liable to defendant for part or all of plaintiffs claim.” C.A. Wright, A.R. Miller & M.K. Kane, 6 Federal Practice and Procedure § 1442, at 295 (1990). See id. at §§ 1441, at 286, 1446, at 377-379; Stewart v. American Int’l Oil & Gas Co., 845 F.2d 196, 200 (9th Cir. 1988) (court did not err in dismissing third-party complaint where “there was no derivative nor secondary liability involved” in complaint); U.S. Gen., Inc. v. Joliet, 598 F.2d 1050, 1053 (7th Cir. 1979) (“plain condition on the face of Rule 14” was not met where “there was no claim that any one of the additional parties would be secondarily liable to [the defendants] in the event it was found in the original cause that [the defendants] were liable to [the plaintiffs]”).
King’s third-party complaint contains no claim for money damages against the director. It does not assert that the director is directly or derivatively liable to King for the plaintiffs’ alleged injuries through indemnity, contribution, or otherwise. The complaint, therefore, does not allege conditions that, pursuant to rule 14, permit the impleading of the director.
Judgment affirmed.