5 Massachusetts opinions name it 2 courts 1978–2006 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 |
|---|---|---|
Graci v. Damongreen2 sentences2004See Graci v. Damon, 6 Mass. App. Ct. 160, 167-171 (declining to follow so-called “Wisconsin rule”). 1980The “Massachusetts Legislature did not accept [the Wisconsin rule] requiring contribution by joint tortfeasors in proportion to the degree of their negligence.” Graci v. Damon, 6 Mass. App. Ct. 160, 169 (1978), S.C., 376 Mass. 931 (1978). | 2 | 2 |
Commonwealth v. Johnsongreen2 sentences2006See, e.g., Johnson, supra at 471 (noting that the flaw in the Federal test is that it analyzes “the probable accuracy of a challenged identification, instead of the necessity for its use”). 2006See, e.g., Johnson, supra at 471 (noting that the flaw in the Federal test is that it analyzes “the probable accuracy of a challenged identification, instead of the necessity for its use”). | 1 | 1 |
Pomerleau v. United Parcel Servicegreen1 sentence1984See Pomerleau v. United Parcel Serv., 464 A.2d 206 (Me. 1983), which applies a clear and convincing evidence standard to these types of injuries. 6 Although various approaches have been adopted to deal with this problem, the emerging trend seems to follow the so-called “Wisconsin rule” or “objective test.” To be compensable under this rule, the injury must result from gradual stimuli that are sufficiently more damaging to the employee than the day-to-day stresses which all employees must face. | 1 | 1 |
Riddell v. Littlegreen1 sentence1978See also Riddell v. Little, 253 Ark. 686, 688-689 (1972). | 1 | 1 |
Walton v. Tullgreen2 sentences1978However, the Wisconsin rule has been rejected in Arkansas in Walton v. Tull, 234 Ark. 882, 891-895 (1962), decided under a statute similar to the Wisconsin statute and containing the same ambiguity (Ark. 1978However, the Wisconsin rule has been rejected in Arkansas in Walton v. Tull, 234 Ark. 882, 891-895 (1962), decided under a statute similar to the Wisconsin statute and containing the same ambiguity (Ark. | 1 | 1 |
Rawson v. Lohsengreen2 sentences1978Rawson v. Lohsen, 145 N.J. 1978Rawson v. Lohsen, 145 N.J. | 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. Malone
green
2 sentences1980The “Massachusetts Legislature did not accept [the Wisconsin rule] requiring contribution by joint tortfeasors in proportion to the degree of their negligence.” Graci v. Damon, 6 Mass. App. Ct. 160, 169 (1978), S.C., 376 Mass. 931 (1978). 1980The “Massachusetts Legislature did not accept [the Wisconsin rule] requiring contribution by joint tortfeasors in proportion to the degree of their negligence.” Graci v. Damon, 6 Mass. App. Ct. 160, 169 (1978), S.C., 376 Mass. 931 (1978). | 1 | 1980–1980 |
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.