Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
5 Massachusetts opinions name it 3 courts 1991–2025 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Massachusetts courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Marram v. Kobrick Offshore Fund, Ltd.green1 sentence2014Group, LLC, 685 F. Supp. 2d at 244 , the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts refused to nullify a contractual forum selection clause on public policy grounds because, “[w]hile the [.Marram 7] opinion does reflect the Massachusetts public policy of protecting investors, that policy is not implicated by forcing Huffing-ton to litigate in Delaware.” By contrast, in this case, the parties’ indemnification clause, which holds the plaintiff liable if it loses its securities claim, does implicate the public policy of protecting investors. | 1 | 1 |
Intergen N v. v. Grinagreen1 sentence2013“One situation where a non-party may invoke a contractual forum selection clause, or it can be invoked against the non-party, is where the non-party is a third-party beneficiary of the contract.” BNY AIS Nominees Ltd. v. Quan, supra. “[A] benefitting third party is not necessarily a third-party beneficiary.” Intergen N.V. v. Grina, 344 F.3d 134, 147 (1st Cir. 2003) (refusing to bind third party to arbitration clause because third party was not third-party beneficiary of contract). | 1 | 1 |
Doherty v. Admiral's Flagship Condominium Trustgreen1 sentence2013“Under Massachusetts law, a contract does not confer third-party beneficiary status unless the ‘language and circumstance of the contract’ show that the parties to the contract ‘clear[ly] and definitely]’ intended the beneficiary to benefit from the promised performance.” Doherty v. Admiral’s Flagship Condominium Trust, 80 Mass. App. Ct. 104, 111 (2011), quoting from Cumis Ins. | 1 | 1 |
Leasefirst v. Decot Bros.green1 sentence1994See Leasefirst v. Decot Bros., Inc., 1990 Mass. App. Div. 177 . | 1 | 1 |
Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewiczgreen1 sentence1991Burger King, supra, at 472 , 105 S. Ct. at 2182, n.14 . | 1 | 1 |
Samincorp South American Minerals & Merchandise Corp. v. Lewisgreen1 sentence1991Corp. v. Lewis, 337 Mass. 298, 301 (1958), and such consent, set forth in a contractual forum selection clause, may constitute &e sole basis for the court’s exercise of personal jurisdiction over the parties. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Massachusetts. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
BNY AIS NOMINEES LTD. v. Quan
green
2 sentences2025Relying on that law, the Appeals Court stated that, “[o]ne situation where a non-party may invoke a contractual forum selection clause, or it can be invoked against the non-party, is where the non- party is a third-party beneficiary of the contract.” Id. at 578, quoting, BNY AIS Nominees Ltd., 609 F. Supp. 2d at 275 . 2013“One situation where a non-party may invoke a contractual forum selection clause, or it can be invoked against the non-party, is where the non-party is a third-party beneficiary of the contract.” BNY AIS Nominees Ltd. v. Quan, supra. “[A] benefitting third party is not necessarily a third-party beneficiary.” Intergen N.V. v. Grina, 344 F.3d 134, 147 (1st Cir. 2003) (refusing to bind third party to arbitration clause because third party was not third-party beneficiary of contract). | 2 | 2013–2025 |
Huffington v. T.C. Group, LLC
green
1 sentence2014Group, LLC, 685 F. Supp. 2d at 244 , the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts refused to nullify a contractual forum selection clause on public policy grounds because, “[w]hile the [.Marram 7] opinion does reflect the Massachusetts public policy of protecting investors, that policy is not implicated by forcing Huffing-ton to litigate in Delaware.” By contrast, in this case, the parties’ indemnification clause, which holds the plaintiff liable if it loses its securities claim, does implicate the public policy of protecting investors. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Nute v. Hamilton Mutual Insurance
green
1 sentence1994Co., 72 Mass. 174 (1856), bars the enforcement of a foreign judgment when the jurisdiction of the foreign tribunal was based on a contractual forum selection clause. | 1 | 1994–1994 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.