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 2 courts 1916–2018 0 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 |
|---|---|---|
Commonwealth v. Hendricksgreen1 sentence2018See Commonwealth v. Hendricks , 452 Mass. 97 , 107-108 (2008). | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Murraygreen2 sentences1992Considering the charge in its entirety, however, to assess the over-all impact on the jury, see Commonwealth v. Sellon, 380 Mass. 220, 231-232 (1980); Commonwealth v. Albert, 391 Mass. 853, 857-858 (1984); Commonwealth v. Murray, supra at 705 , we are convinced that the instruction could not seriously have misled the jury. 1992The defendant also objects to one of the portions of the judge’s instructions to the jury, in which the judge described the identification of the defendant as the perpetrator as “one of the most important issues in this case and in all criminal cases,” and followed with a description of factors appropriate for the jury to take into account in evaluating the reliability of an identification, including length of encounter, lighting conditions, “whether there was a prior relationship, [and] whether the witness had occasion to meet the person in the past.” The excursion into these factors was misd | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Sellongreen1 sentence1992Considering the charge in its entirety, however, to assess the over-all impact on the jury, see Commonwealth v. Sellon, 380 Mass. 220, 231-232 (1980); Commonwealth v. Albert, 391 Mass. 853, 857-858 (1984); Commonwealth v. Murray, supra at 705 , we are convinced that the instruction could not seriously have misled the jury. | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Albertgreen1 sentence1992Considering the charge in its entirety, however, to assess the over-all impact on the jury, see Commonwealth v. Sellon, 380 Mass. 220, 231-232 (1980); Commonwealth v. Albert, 391 Mass. 853, 857-858 (1984); Commonwealth v. Murray, supra at 705 , we are convinced that the instruction could not seriously have misled the jury. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Massachusetts. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Jefferson Insurance Co. of New York v. City of Holyoke
green
1 sentence1992Co. v. Holyoke, 23 Mass. App. Ct. at 476-477 . | 1 | 1992–1992 |
Massachusetts Motor Vehicle Reinsurance Facility v. Commissioner of Insurance
green
2 sentences1980In that opinion the court observed that the statutory scheme embodied in c. 175D is intended to benefit the public by ensuring that all drivers with policies covered by the Fund will be paid for losses incurred, id. at 534-535 ; i.e., the driving public is to be protected against the consequences of financial failure by an automobile liability insurer. 1980This reading of the statutory design rests as well on the description and analysis of the Fund which the Supreme Judicial Court made recently in Massachusetts Motor Vehicle Reinsurance Facility v. Commissioner of Ins., 379 Mass. 527 , *487 530-535 (1980). | 1 | 1980–1980 |
Sibley v. Maxwell
green
1 sentence1916Sibley v. Maxwell, 203 Mass. 94 . • The purpose of the testator is further manifest by the clause immediately following the paragraph in question: “I have already paid to and for the benefit of my said son Robert Morris Pierce certain large sums which are not included in the indebtedness aforesaid and I have therefore granted to his sister Elsie Pierce a greater .interest in my estate than to my said son.” The executors for the reasons stated not having been required to pay out of the general assets of the estate any of these notes, the further request that “in order to entitle the defendants | 1 | 1916–1916 |
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.