5 Massachusetts opinions name it 4 courts 1997–2025 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 |
|---|---|---|
Murray v. Town of Hudsongreen1 sentence2025L. c. 258, § 4; Murray v. Hudson, 472 Mass. 376, 384 (2015) (presentment adequate if "it sets forth sufficient facts from which public officials reasonably can discern the legal basis of the claim, and determine whether it states a claim for which damages may be recovered under the [MTCA]"). [3] The city also argues that it was entitled to summary judgment because Citation had not put forth any admissible evidence of negligence. | 1 | 1 |
Gilmore v. Commonwealthgreen1 sentence2015See Gilmore v. Commonwealth, 417 Mass. 718, 723 (1994) (“While a presentment letter should be precise in identifying the legal basis of a plaintiff’s claim, [the plaintiff’s] letters . . . were not so obscure that educated public officials should find themselves baffled or misled with respect to” claim being asserted). | 1 | 1 |
Casavant v. Norwegian Cruise Line Ltd.green1 sentence2011Casavant v. Norwegian Cruise Line Ltd., 460 Mass. 500, 506 (2011). | 1 | 1 |
Martin v. Commonwealthgreen1 sentence2005Contrast Martin v. Commonwealth, 53 Mass. App. Ct. at 532 (concluding that “the letter, which specifically identifled a legal basis . . . put the executive officer on notice of the time, place, and factual basis of the claims sufficiently to allow the opportunity to investigate, evaluate, settle, and avoid further liability”); Rodriguez v. Cambridge Hous. | 1 | 1 |
Campione v. Wilsongreen1 sentence1997Campione v. Wilson, supra at 191-92, quoting Gray v. Grain Dealers Mut. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Massachusetts. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
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.
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.