5 Massachusetts opinions name it 3 courts 2003–2023 2 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. Alphasgreen2 sentences2023See Commonwealth v. Alphas, 430 Mass. 8, 13 (1999). 2023See Commonwealth v. Alphas, 430 Mass. 8, 13 (1999). | 2 | 2 |
Commonwealth v. Pellegrinigreen1 sentence2018See Commonwealth v. Pellegrini, 414 Mass. 402 , 407 n.7 (1993) (discussing but not deciding the issue). | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Goodwingreen1 sentence2018See id . at 17, 933 N.E.2d 925 . | 1 | 1 |
Brunet v. United Gas Pipeline Co.green1 sentence2003E.g., Brunet v. United Gas Pipeline Co., 15 F.3d 500, 505 (5th Cir. 1994) (not abuse of discretion to admit drug test performed two days after boat accident to show crew member under influence at time of accident where there was evidence of prior drug use and convictions by crew). 5 Indeed, in one of the cases cited by the plaintiffs, the test showed drug use prior to the accident, although it did not pinpoint precisely when drugs had been taken. | 1 | 1 |
Johnson v. Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authoritygreen1 sentence2003See Johnson v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, 764 F.Sup. 1568, 1578 (D.D.C. 1991) (admission of drug test performed day of train accident as part of post-accident medical examination proper even though test could not narrow down when during previous week drugs were ingested, in light of delayed reaction time being consistent with cocaine use, train operator’s odd behavior immediately before and after the accident, and fact that operator denied any drug use prior to the accident despite the test results to the contrary). 6 Cf. Johnson v. MBTA, 418 Mass. at 785-86 (employee on p | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Massachusetts. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
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.