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.
39 Massachusetts opinions name it 5 courts 1908–2025 2 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 |
|---|---|---|
Opinion of the Justices to the Senategreen2 sentences2010See Goldblatt v. Corporation Counsel of Boston, 360 Mass. 660, 665 (1971); Opinion of the Justices, 289 Mass. 607, 613-614 (1935). 1984Parsing the statute, its operation turns on the fulfilment of its initial condition, “permission of the court. ” The prominent placement of this statutory element is not accidental, since it is of constitutional significance: “It is inherent in the judicial department of government under the [Massachusetts] Constitution to control the practice of law . . . and as a general proposition, valid permission to practice law cannot be given by the General Court except subject to the requirements for admission to thfe bar established by the judicial depart ment.” Opinion of the Justices, 289 Mass. 607 | 3 | 3 |
DiLuzio v. UNITED ELECTRICAL, RADIO & MACHINE WKRS.green2 sentences2006Workers, Local 274, 391 Mass. 211, 214-215 (1984) (as constitutional matter, Legislature cannot give permission to practice law, but may enact laws in “aid of the judicial prerogative”); Lowell Bar Ass’n v. Loeb, 315 Mass. 176, 179 (1943) (explaining that statutes “may aid by providing machinery and criminal penalties, but may not extend the privilege of practising law to persons not admitted to practice by the judicial department”). 2005DiLuzio v. United Electrical, Radio & Machine Workers of America, Local 274, 391 Mass. 211, 215 (1984). | 3 | 3 |
In Re Estate of Kishgreen2 sentences1974In In re Estate of Kish, 52 N.J. 454, 472 (1968), the court said: “In view of a court’s inherent power to pass upon the reasonableness of fees charged in connection with any matter before it, any fee arrangement set forth in such a power of attorney is subject to judicial review. 1974In In re Estate of Kish, 52 N.J. 454, 472 (1968), the court said: "In view of a court's inherent power to pass upon the reasonableness of fees charged in connection with any matter before it, any fee arrangement set forth in such a *795 power of attorney is subject to judicial review. | 2 | 2 |
Lowell Bar Ass'n v. Loebgreen2 sentences2006Workers, Local 274, 391 Mass. 211, 214-215 (1984) (as constitutional matter, Legislature cannot give permission to practice law, but may enact laws in “aid of the judicial prerogative”); Lowell Bar Ass’n v. Loeb, 315 Mass. 176, 179 (1943) (explaining that statutes “may aid by providing machinery and criminal penalties, but may not extend the privilege of practising law to persons not admitted to practice by the judicial department”). 2005We consequently conclude that Chimko’s preparation of the reaffirmation agreement does not lie “wholly within the practice of law [such that it] cannot lawfully be performed by . . . any other person not a member of the bar.” Lowell Bar Ass’n v. Loeb, supra at 183 . | 1 | 2 |
Jordan v. Register of Probategreen1 sentence2025See Jordan v. Register of Probate for Hampden County, 426 Mass. 1020, 1020 (1998) ("Once again, we caution pro se litigants that they will be held to the same standards as litigants who are represented by counsel"). | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Pamplonagreen1 sentence2023In this colloquy, the judge advised the mother that if she represented herself at trial, she would be held to the same standards applicable to a member of the bar, and explicitly warned her that "[she] could be at a 5 disadvantage in representing [he]rself." 6 See Pamplona, supra at 241-242 (where "judge advised the defendant that difficulties can attend self-representation and that knowledge of the law and the rules of evidence would be helpful," colloquy held "truncated . . . [but] adequate"). | 1 | 1 |
Ellis v. Department of Industrial Accidentsgreen1 sentence2014See, e.g., Ellis, 463 Mass. at 548 (Legislature impermissibly assigned to executive branch core judicial function of “disciplin[ing] a member of the bar by permanently or temporarily suspending the right of the attorney to practice”); Doe, Sex Offender Registry Bd. No. 10800 v. Sex Offender Registry Bd., 459 Mass. 603, 621 (2011) (“Legislature impermissibly interferes with judicial functions when it purports to modify the judgment of a court”). | 1 | 1 |
Doe v. Sex Offender Registry Boardgreen1 sentence2014See, e.g., Ellis, 463 Mass. at 548 (Legislature impermissibly assigned to executive branch core judicial function of “disciplin[ing] a member of the bar by permanently or temporarily suspending the right of the attorney to practice”); Doe, Sex Offender Registry Bd. No. 10800 v. Sex Offender Registry Bd., 459 Mass. 603, 621 (2011) (“Legislature impermissibly interferes with judicial functions when it purports to modify the judgment of a court”). | 1 | 1 |
LAS Collection Management v. Pagangreen1 sentence2013LAS Collection Management v. Pagan, 447 Mass. 847, 849-50 (2006). | 1 | 1 |
Goldblatt v. Corporation Counsel of Bostongreen1 sentence2010See Goldblatt v. Corporation Counsel of Boston, 360 Mass. 660, 665 (1971); Opinion of the Justices, 289 Mass. 607, 613-614 (1935). | 1 | 1 |
Attorney General v. Commissioner of Insurancegreen1 sentence2008While we may in our discretion address moot issues, see Attorney Gen. v. Commissioner of Ins., 403 Mass. 370, 380 (1988), we decline to do so here. | 1 | 1 |
Miller v. Commissioner of Correctiongreen1 sentence2005Miller v. Commissioner of Correction, 36 Mass. App. Ct. 114, 120-121 (1994), citing Kay v. Ehrler, 499 U.S. 432 (1991) (lawyer representing himself not entitled to award of attorney’s fees under 42 U.S.C. §1983 ). | 1 | 1 |
Faretta v. Californiagreen1 sentence1995See, e.g., Faretta, supra at 834-835 n.46 (pro se defendants cannot raise ineffective assistance of counsel claims on appeal). | 1 | 1 |
Panell v. Rosagreen1 sentence1994See Foster v. Hall, 29 Mass. 89 (1831); Pannell v. Rosa, 228 Mass. 594, 596 (1917). | 1 | 1 |
Foster v. Hallgreen1 sentence1994See Foster v. Hall, 29 Mass. 89 (1831); Pannell v. Rosa, 228 Mass. 594, 596 (1917). | 1 | 1 |
Graustein v. Boston & Maine Railroadgreen1 sentence1984Graustein v. Boston & Maine R.R., 304 Mass. 23, 27 (1939). | 1 | 1 |
S. Kemble Fischer Realty Trust v. Board of Appealsgreen1 sentence1981S. Kemble Fischer Realty Trust v. Board of Appeals of Concord, 9 Mass. App. Ct. 477, 478-480 (1980). | 1 | 1 |
Blankenburg v. Commonwealthgreen1 sentence1980See Blankenburg v. Commonwealth, 260 Mass. 369 , 378 n.* (1927); Connors, The Law of Contempt in Massachusetts: An Overview, 63 Mass. L. | 1 | 1 |
Greenough v. Osgoodgreen2 sentences1976But the language of both the will and the trust is significantly different from the language in the Hooper case, and by 1926 the donor was entitled to rely on our statement in Greenough v. Osgood, 235 Mass. 235, 242 (1920): “It is settled that a power of appointment of a fund in favor of children is well exercised by an appointment to trustees in favor of children____” The first trust considered in the Hooper case was created by a deed providing for payment to “such of” the donee’s “children, if any, and in such proportions as” the donee may by will direct. 203 Mass. at 53 . 1976But the language of both the will and the trust is significantly different from the language in the Hooper case, and by 1926 the donor was entitled to rely on our statement in Greenough v. Osgood, 235 Mass. 235, 242 (1920): "It is settled that a power of appointment of a fund in favor of children is well exercised by an appointment to trustees in favor of children...." The first trust considered in the Hooper case was created by a deed providing for payment to "such of" the donee's "children, if any, and in such proportions as" the donee may by will direct. 203 Mass. at 53 . | 1 | 1 |
| In re Lyongreen | 1 | 1 |
| Commonwealth v. Ferrisgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Brooks v. Volunteer Harbor No. 4, American Ass'n of Masters, Mates & Pilotsgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Massachusetts. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Sherwin-Williams Co. v. J. Mannos & Sons, Inc.
green
2 sentences2009Mannos & Sons, Inc., 287 Mass. 304, 311 , the rulings of the trial judge that the provisions of G.L.c. 221, §49, were not intended to permit a person not a member of the bar to engage in the general practice of law by obtaining a power of attorney from his client in each case .. . were held to be free from error”). 1939Mannos & Sons, Inc. 287 Mass. 304, 316 , and under said § 46A one not a member of the bar may act in violation of its provisions whether his agreement with his client is champertous or not. | 2 | 1939–2009 |
Mistretta v. United States
green
1 sentence2014Cf. Mistretta v. United States, 488 U.S. 361 , 391 n.17 (1989) (Congress may not “assign[] judicial responsibilities to the Executive or . . . unite[] the power to prosecute and the power to sentence within one Branch”). | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Kay v. Ehrler
green
1 sentence2005Miller v. Commissioner of Correction, 36 Mass. App. Ct. 114, 120-121 (1994), citing Kay v. Ehrler, 499 U.S. 432 (1991) (lawyer representing himself not entitled to award of attorney’s fees under 42 U.S.C. §1983 ). | 1 | 2005–2005 |
National Employment Service Corp. v. Liberty Mutual Insurance
neutral
1 sentence2001“Where a person, as a client or prospective client, consults a member of the bar in his capacity as such, the communication in confidence of matters that are or that the client reasonably supposes to be necessary to the proper conduct of legal business is privileged at the option of the client.” National Employment Service Corp. v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, 3 Mass. L. | 1 | 2001–2001 |
In re Ogan
green
1 sentence1998In Matter of Ogan, supra, the lawyer participated in thirty-three sales in which inflated sales prices were reported to lenders to obtain loans that were excessive in relation to (but less than) the true sales prices. | 1 | 1998–1998 |
In re Concemi
green
1 sentence1998In the Concemi case, we concluded that disbarment was “the appropriate sanction for an attorney convicted of thirty-five felony counts for conspiracy to defraud a bank, bank fraud, and making false statements to a federally insured bank while acting in his capacity as a member of the bar.” Matter of Concemi, supra at 331-332 . | 1 | 1998–1998 |
United States v. United Shoe MacHinery Corporation
green
1 sentence1982The Court went on to write that the “. . . main qualifications which are necessary . . .” for the privilege to apply, as follows: Thé privilege applies only if (1) tiie asserted holder of the privilege is or sought to become a client; (2) the person to whom the communication was made (a) is a member of the bar of a court, or his subordinate and (b) in connection with this communication is acting as a lawyer; (3) the communication relates to a fact of which the attorney was informed (a) by his client (and) (b) without the presence of strangers (and) (c) for the purpose of securing primarily eit | 1 | 1982–1982 |
McKenney v. Commission on Judicial Conduct
green
1 sentence1981Mr. McKenney's challenges to these complaints and our disposition of them are discussed at length in McKenney v. Commission on Judicial Conduct, 377 Mass. 790 (1979) ( McKenney I ), and McKenney v. Commission on Judicial Conduct, 380 Mass. 263 (1980) ( McKenney II ). | 1 | 1981–1981 |
McKenney v. Commission on Judicial Conduct
green
1 sentence1981Mr. McKenney's challenges to these complaints and our disposition of them are discussed at length in McKenney v. Commission on Judicial Conduct, 377 Mass. 790 (1979) ( McKenney I ), and McKenney v. Commission on Judicial Conduct, 380 Mass. 263 (1980) ( McKenney II ). | 1 | 1981–1981 |
In Re Hallinan
green
2 sentences1978In re Hollinan, 71 Cal. 2d 1179 (1969). 1978In re Hallinan, 71 Cal.2d 1179 (1969). | 1 | 1978–1978 |
Hooper v. Hooper
green
2 sentences1976But the language of both the will and the trust is significantly different from the language in the Hooper case, and by 1926 the donor was entitled to rely on our statement in Greenough v. Osgood, 235 Mass. 235, 242 (1920): “It is settled that a power of appointment of a fund in favor of children is well exercised by an appointment to trustees in favor of children____” The first trust considered in the Hooper case was created by a deed providing for payment to “such of” the donee’s “children, if any, and in such proportions as” the donee may by will direct. 203 Mass. at 53 . 1976But the language of both the will and the trust is significantly different from the language in the Hooper case, and by 1926 the donor was entitled to rely on our statement in Greenough v. Osgood, 235 Mass. 235, 242 (1920): "It is settled that a power of appointment of a fund in favor of children is well exercised by an appointment to trustees in favor of children...." The first trust considered in the Hooper case was created by a deed providing for payment to "such of" the donee's "children, if any, and in such proportions as" the donee may by will direct. 203 Mass. at 53 . | 1 | 1976–1976 |
| Cummings v. National Shawmut Bank of Boston green | 1 | 1961–1961 |
| Tarr v. Vivian green | 1 | 1960–1960 |
| In re Ulmer green | 1 | 1946–1946 |
| In re Stern green | 1 | 1946–1946 |
| In re Santosuosso green | 1 | 1946–1946 |
| Commonwealth v. Welansky green | 1 | 1946–1946 |
| Opinion of the Justices to the Senate green | 1 | 1944–1944 |
| Gill v. Richmond Co-operative Ass'n green | 1 | 1944–1944 |
| In re de Propper green | 1 | 1943–1943 |
| In re Thibodeau green | 1 | 1943–1943 |
| In re Keenan green | 1 | 1943–1943 |
| Keenan green | 1 | 1943–1943 |
| Kareske's Case green | 1 | 1940–1940 |
| Atwill v. Mackintosh green | 1 | 1917–1917 |
| Osborn v. Bank of United States green | 1 | 1908–1908 |
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.