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 2 courts 1978–2018 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. Bladsagreen2 sentences1996See Commonwealth v. Proctor, 403 Mass. 146, 148 (1988) (former convictions without counsel inadmissible in c. 123A hearing); Commonwealth v. Knowlton, supra (right to competency hearing prior to SDP hearing); Commonwealth v. Travis, supra at 249-250 (higher standard for vacating judgment than most civil cases); Andrews, petitioner, supra at 484, 489 (burden of proof is on Commonwealth; standard of proof is beyond a reasonable doubt); Commonwealth v. Lamb, 365 Mass. 265, 270 (1974) (psychotherapist-patient privilege); Commonwealth v. Bladsa, 362 Mass. 539, 541 (1972) (evidentiary protections); 1979Commonwealth v. Rodriguez, supra at 646 . 8 See Commonwealth v. Bladsa, supra. Finally, we reject the Commonwealth’s suggestion that proceedings under G. | 1 | 2 |
Commonwealth v. Pariseaugreen2 sentences2018See Pariseau , 466 Mass. at 813 -814 , 2 N.E.3d 859 . 2018See Pariseau , 466 Mass. at 813 -814 , 2 N.E.3d 859 . | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Lambgreen1 sentence1996See Commonwealth v. Proctor, 403 Mass. 146, 148 (1988) (former convictions without counsel inadmissible in c. 123A hearing); Commonwealth v. Knowlton, supra (right to competency hearing prior to SDP hearing); Commonwealth v. Travis, supra at 249-250 (higher standard for vacating judgment than most civil cases); Andrews, petitioner, supra at 484, 489 (burden of proof is on Commonwealth; standard of proof is beyond a reasonable doubt); Commonwealth v. Lamb, 365 Mass. 265, 270 (1974) (psychotherapist-patient privilege); Commonwealth v. Bladsa, 362 Mass. 539, 541 (1972) (evidentiary protections); | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Proctorgreen1 sentence1996See Commonwealth v. Proctor, 403 Mass. 146, 148 (1988) (former convictions without counsel inadmissible in c. 123A hearing); Commonwealth v. Knowlton, supra (right to competency hearing prior to SDP hearing); Commonwealth v. Travis, supra at 249-250 (higher standard for vacating judgment than most civil cases); Andrews, petitioner, supra at 484, 489 (burden of proof is on Commonwealth; standard of proof is beyond a reasonable doubt); Commonwealth v. Lamb, 365 Mass. 265, 270 (1974) (psychotherapist-patient privilege); Commonwealth v. Bladsa, 362 Mass. 539, 541 (1972) (evidentiary protections); | 1 | 1 |
Petersongreen1 sentence1996See Commonwealth v. Proctor, 403 Mass. 146, 148 (1988) (former convictions without counsel inadmissible in c. 123A hearing); Commonwealth v. Knowlton, supra (right to competency hearing prior to SDP hearing); Commonwealth v. Travis, supra at 249-250 (higher standard for vacating judgment than most civil cases); Andrews, petitioner, supra at 484, 489 (burden of proof is on Commonwealth; standard of proof is beyond a reasonable doubt); Commonwealth v. Lamb, 365 Mass. 265, 270 (1974) (psychotherapist-patient privilege); Commonwealth v. Bladsa, 362 Mass. 539, 541 (1972) (evidentiary protections); | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Travisgreen1 sentence1996See Commonwealth v. Proctor, 403 Mass. 146, 148 (1988) (former convictions without counsel inadmissible in c. 123A hearing); Commonwealth v. Knowlton, supra (right to competency hearing prior to SDP hearing); Commonwealth v. Travis, supra at 249-250 (higher standard for vacating judgment than most civil cases); Andrews, petitioner, supra at 484, 489 (burden of proof is on Commonwealth; standard of proof is beyond a reasonable doubt); Commonwealth v. Lamb, 365 Mass. 265, 270 (1974) (psychotherapist-patient privilege); Commonwealth v. Bladsa, 362 Mass. 539, 541 (1972) (evidentiary protections); | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Hillgreen2 sentences1979Cf. Commonwealth v. Hill, 375 Mass. 50, 54 (1978); Commonwealth v. Kostka, 370 Mass. 516, 522 (1976). 1979Therefore, he claims that a competency hearing prior to any further proceedings was constitutionally compelled. 4 The Commonwealth "agrees with the defendant that there were sufficient facts known to the judge, or brought to his attention during the hearing, to raise the question of the defendant’s competency at the time of the hearing.” The Commonwealth further agrees that "on these facts, a hearing on competency would have been required in a criminal prosecution.” See Commonwealth v. Hill, 375 Mass. 50, 57-58 (1978). | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Kostkagreen2 sentences1979Cf. Commonwealth v. Hill, 375 Mass. 50, 54 (1978); Commonwealth v. Kostka, 370 Mass. 516, 522 (1976). 1979Cf. Commonwealth v. Hill, 375 Mass. 50, 54 (1978); Commonwealth v. Kostka, 370 Mass. 516, 522 (1976). | 1 | 1 |
Sullivan v. Judges of the Superior Courtgreen1 sentence1979It is well established that "[wjhenever genuine question arises in the trial of a cause whether a party to *485 an action is capable of conducting the litigation by reason of minority or mental incapacity, it is the duty of the court to ascertain the fact and in case a finding is made that such incapacity exists to cause some competent person to be appointed to conduct the litigation.” Sullivan v. Superior Court, 271 Mass. 435, 437 (1930). | 1 | 1 |
Addington v. Texasgreen1 sentence1979Cf. Addington v. Texas, 441 U.S. 418, 429-430 (1979). 10 We express no opinion as to whether a competency hearing will be required as a precondition to any new SDP hearing involving the defendant. | 1 | 1 |
In Re GAULTred2 sentences1978For the procedure, see A Juvenile v. Commonwealth, 370 Mass. 272 (1976). 2 The text of § 1 is reproduced at note 13, infra. 3 See Mr. Justice Fortas’s remarks for the majority in In re Gault, 387 U.S. 1, 14-27 (1967). 4 Gault held that due process required adequate written notice of the charges to the child and his parents or guardians (387 U.S. at *636 31-34), representation by counsel, appointed if necessary (at 34-42), observation of the privilege against self-incrimination (at 44-56), and opportunity to confront and cross-examine adverse witnesses (at 56-57). 1978For the procedure, see A Juvenile v. Commonwealth, 370 Mass. 272 (1976). 2 The text of § 1 is reproduced at note 13, infra. 3 See Mr. Justice Fortas’s remarks for the majority in In re Gault, 387 U.S. 1, 14-27 (1967). 4 Gault held that due process required adequate written notice of the charges to the child and his parents or guardians (387 U.S. at *636 31-34), representation by counsel, appointed if necessary (at 34-42), observation of the privilege against self-incrimination (at 44-56), and opportunity to confront and cross-examine adverse witnesses (at 56-57). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Massachusetts. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Commonwealth v. Knowlton
green
2 sentences2005Should the court determine that the person’s competency will not be restored in the foreseeable future, the court “may appoint a guardian ad litem to protect the defendant’s interests at the SDP hearing.” 2 Id. at 486 . 3 The SJC further rejected the sharp distinction between civil and criminal proceedings, noting that “in deciding what safeguards are required, it is necessary to look at the nature of the right which the State seeks to circumscribe. 2005Should the court determine that the person’s competency will not be restored in the foreseeable future, the court “may appoint a guardian ad litem to protect the defendant’s interests at the SDP hearing.” 2 Id. at 486 . 3 The SJC further rejected the sharp distinction between civil and criminal proceedings, noting that “in deciding what safeguards are required, it is necessary to look at the nature of the right which the State seeks to circumscribe. | 2 | 1996–2005 |
Commonwealth v. Rodriguez
green
2 sentences1979Commonwealth v. Rodriguez, supra at 646 . 8 See Commonwealth v. Bladsa, supra. Finally, we reject the Commonwealth’s suggestion that proceedings under G. 1979Commonwealth v. Rodriguez, supra at 646 . 8 See Commonwealth v. Bladsa, supra. Finally, we reject the Commonwealth’s suggestion that proceedings under G. | 1 | 1979–1979 |
A Juvenile v. Commonwealth
green
2 sentences1978For the procedure, see A Juvenile v. Commonwealth, 370 Mass. 272 (1976). 2 The text of § 1 is reproduced at note 13, infra. 3 See Mr. Justice Fortas’s remarks for the majority in In re Gault, 387 U.S. 1, 14-27 (1967). 4 Gault held that due process required adequate written notice of the charges to the child and his parents or guardians (387 U.S. at *636 31-34), representation by counsel, appointed if necessary (at 34-42), observation of the privilege against self-incrimination (at 44-56), and opportunity to confront and cross-examine adverse witnesses (at 56-57). 1978For the procedure, see A Juvenile v. Commonwealth, 370 Mass. 272 (1976). 2 The text of § 1 is reproduced at note 13, infra. 3 See Mr. Justice Fortas’s remarks for the majority in In re Gault, 387 U.S. 1, 14-27 (1967). 4 Gault held that due process required adequate written notice of the charges to the child and his parents or guardians (387 U.S. at *636 31-34), representation by counsel, appointed if necessary (at 34-42), observation of the privilege against self-incrimination (at 44-56), and opportunity to confront and cross-examine adverse witnesses (at 56-57). | 1 | 1978–1978 |
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.