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 1 courts 2019–2026 4 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 |
|---|---|---|
Doe v. Sex Offender Registry Boardgreen1 sentence2025The hearing examiner's detailed reasoning demonstrates that he carefully weighed the factors and that the level three classification was "based on a sound exercise of informed discretion rather than the mechanical application of a checklist or some other reflex." Doe, Sex Offender Registry Bd. No. 356315 v. Sex Offender Registry Bd., 99 Mass. App. Ct. 292 , 299 (2021), quoting Doe, Sex Offender Registry Bd. No. 136652 v. Sex 11 Offender Registry Bd., 81 Mass. App. Ct. 639, 651 (2012). | 1 | 1 |
Doe, Sex Offender Registry Board No. 1211 v. Sex Offender Registry Boardgreen1 sentence2024None of the applicable mitigating circumstances required the examiner to find that Doe does not present any risk of reoffense or dangerousness, particularly in view of the high-risk and risk-elevating factors that the 6 hearing examiner also found applicable to Doe. 4,5 See Doe, Sex Offender Registry Bd. No. 1211 v. Sex Offender Registry Bd., 447 Mass. 750, 764 (2006) (hearing examiner not required to find that "risk-reducing factors completely ameliorated . . . risk of reoffense and degree of dangerousness"). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Massachusetts. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Doe, Sex Offender Registry Board No. 68549 v. Sex Offender Registry Board
green
2 sentences2026A hearing examiner "has discretion . . . to consider which statutory and regulatory factors are applicable and how much weight to ascribe to each factor . . . ." Doe, Sex Offender Registry Bd. No. 22188 v. Sex Offender Registry Bd., 96 Mass. App. Ct. 738 , 742 (2019) (Doe No. 22188), quoting Doe No. 68549, 470 Mass. at 109-110 . 2026The Supreme Judicial Court noted that "the [SORB] guidelines specify whether each of the factors enumerated in them applies in whole, in part, or not at all to a '[j]uvenile [o]ffender.'" Id.4 Importantly, in the context of classification of sex offenders, each factor states whether it applies differently to juvenile offenders, and many factors apply in the same way to adult and juvenile offenders.5 Of the high-risk and risk- elevating factors that the examiner applied to Doe, factors 19 (level of physical contact), 20 (diverse sexual behavior), 21 4 At the time the Supreme Judicial Court deci | 3 | 2019–2026 |
Doe, Sex Offender Registry Board No. 3974 v. Sex Offender Registry Board
green
2 sentences2026We follow the rule that "[i]n the absence of a statutory directive to the contrary, the administrative remedies should be exhausted before resort to the courts" (quotation omitted), id. at 57-58 , because "when a party neglects to raise an issue during agency proceedings, the reviewing court lacks a record on which to evaluate questions of statutory authority or jurisdiction." Id. at 58 . 5 To the extent it can be considered a separate argument, the plaintiff's related claim that the examiner erred in weighing the high-risk and risk-elevating factors against the risk- mitigating factors is als 2026We follow the rule that "[i]n the absence of a statutory directive to the contrary, the administrative remedies should be exhausted before resort to the courts" (quotation omitted), id. at 57-58 , because "when a party neglects to raise an issue during agency proceedings, the reviewing court lacks a record on which to evaluate questions of statutory authority or jurisdiction." Id. at 58 . 5 To the extent it can be considered a separate argument, the plaintiff's related claim that the examiner erred in weighing the high-risk and risk-elevating factors against the risk- mitigating factors is als | 1 | 2026–2026 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.