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 2023–2026 5 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, Sex Offender Registry Board No. 68549 v. Sex Offender Registry Boardgreen2 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 . 2024"A hearing examiner has discretion . . . to consider which statutory and regulatory factors are applicable and how much weight to ascribe to each factor, and . . . a reviewing court is required to 'give due weight to [the examiner's] experience, technical competence, and specialized knowledge.'" Doe, Sex Offender Registry Bd. No. 68549 v. Sex Offender Registry Bd., 470 Mass. 102 , 109–110 (2014), quoting G. | 1 | 3 |
John Doe v. Sex Offender Registry Bd.green1 sentence2025"A reviewing court may set aside or modify SORB's classification decision where it determines that the decision is in excess of SORB's statutory authority or jurisdiction, violates constitutional provisions, is based on an error of law, or is not supported by substantial evidence." Doe, Sex Offender Registry Bd. No. 496501 v. Sex Offender 1 The examiner applied the following risk-aggravating factors: 7 - relationship between offender and victim; 10 - contact with criminal justice system; 11 - violence unrelated to sexual assaults; 13 - noncompliance with community supervision; and 19 - level o | 1 | 1 |
Doe v. Sex Offender Registry Boardgreen1 sentence2023"It is apparent from the hearing examiner's careful weighing of the factors, as set forth above, including his decision not to give full weight to some aggravating factors, that 'the classification is 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 Offender Registry Bd., 81 Mass. App. Ct. 639, 651 (2012) (Doe No. 136652). | 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. 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.