5 Massachusetts opinions name it 3 courts 2001–2012 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. Parragreen2 sentences2012In Parra, supra, we made clear that “dismissal is the appropriate remedy for any violation of the sixty-day deadline, absent extraordinary circumstances that would justify a very brief delay.” The fact that the department had not been “notified of the finding of probable cause” — whether due to a failure by the clerk or the prosecutor — did not constitute “extraordinary circumstances,” and the dismissal was accordingly affirmed. 2010“The statute’s deadlines are mandatory to protect a defendant’s liberty interest, and any delay by the [Petitioner] that results in a confinement exceeding [five] days is a violation of the statute.... [Dismissal is the appropriate remedy for any violation of the... deadline, absent extraordinary circumstances that would justify a very brief delay.” Id, quoting Commonwealth v. Parra, 445 Mass. 262, 263 (2005). | 4 | 4 |
School Committee of Danvers v. Tymangreen1 sentence2001See School Committee of Danvers v. Tyman, 372 Mass. at 115 . | 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.