workable rule in Massachusetts

1983“The rule we adopted [in City Council of Waltham v. Vinciullo, supra] has us look to the stage of the proceedings affected by the change and determine whether that stage has been completed on the effective date of the amendment.

1975However, in City Council of Waltham v. Vinciullo, 364 Mass. 624 (1974), we chose not to rely on the substantive-procedural distinction and instead attempted to formulate a more workable rule.

2012Id. at 277-78 .

2007The husband also argues that, although a subjective test for determining when a marriage is irretrievably broken may be appropriate in some circumstances, as in Caffyn v. Caffyn, supra, a more workable rule would be for the court to use the point when the wife left Arizona.

1968L. c. 277, § 47A, inserted by St. 1965, c. 617; Rule 101A of the Superior Court, effective December 1, 1964. 4 In Chapman v. California, the court said at page 24: “While appellate courts do not ordinarily have the original task of applying such a test, it is a familiar standard to all courts, and _we believe its adoption will provide a more workable standard . . . [than in Fahy v. Connecticut, 375 U. S. 85 ].” 5 The retrun shows nine major motions filed by defence counsel, including a motion for particulars, a motion that he be furnished with a copy of the autopsy and report thereon, a motion