19 Massachusetts opinions name it 4 courts 1979–2026 4 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 |
|---|---|---|
Ajemian v. Yahoo!, Inc.green1 sentence2026The 13Such a determination might require extensive preliminary litigation that could undermine the purpose of the FSC. 14Kim suggests that Massachusetts law is to the contrary; he relies on a decision stating, "We have found no Massachusetts case enforcing a forum selection clause or a limitations clause against a nonsignatory to the contract." Ajemian v. Yahoo!, Inc., 83 Mass. App. Ct. 565, 577 (2013), S.C., 478 Mass. 169 (2017), cert. denied sub nom. | 1 | 1 |
BNY AIS NOMINEES LTD. v. Quangreen1 sentence2025First, Ajemian v. Yahoo!, Inc., 83 Mass. App. -------------------------------------------- [7] Grip alleges in the Complaint that, “[a]lthough Brazil was selected for logistical reasons, the parties understood that the potential business opportunity was not limited to Brazil.” Compl. ¶ 43. -12- Ct. 565, 577-578 (2013), in which the Court considered whether an online forum selection clause could be enforced against a nonsignatory to the contract.[8] Although the Appeals Court noted that it “found no Massachusetts case enforcing a forum selection clause or a limitations clause against a nonsigna | 1 | 1 |
Synthes, Inc. v. Emerge Medical, Inc.green1 sentence2025Conn. 2009); Synthes, Inc. v. Emerge Medical, Inc., 887 F. Supp. 2d 598, 607 (E.D. | 1 | 1 |
Clark v. Clarkgreen1 sentence2020Regarding the words used in the CPT manual, as stated by the hearing officer, the matter had been covered "ad nauseam." See Clark v. Clark, 47 Mass. App. Ct. 737, 746 (1999) ("judge has the ability to see that the cross-examination progresses without repetitious and irrelevant inquiries"). | 1 | 1 |
Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Co. v. Y.C.N. Transportation Co.green1 sentence2015Co., 46 Mass. App. Ct. at 214-215 (by making partial payment after first disclaiming coverage and after statute of limitations had run, insurer waived the limitations defense). | 1 | 1 |
City of Boston v. Keene Corp.green1 sentence2015See Keene Corp., 406 Mass. at 312-313 (“the defendants’ interest in the limitations defense is procedural rather than substantive. . . . [I]n cases not involving claims to real property, the running of the applicable limitations period bars only the legal remedy, while leaving the underlying cause of action unaffected”). | 1 | 1 |
Bose Corp. v. Consumers Union of United States, Inc.green1 sentence2011Because the counterclaims are permissive, they are considered to have been filed at the same time as McGrath’s complaint, July 23,2010. 2 See G.L.c. 260, §36; Bose Corp. v. Consumers Union of United States, Inc., 367 Mass. 424, 430-31 (1975). | 1 | 1 |
Peterson v. Hopsongreen1 sentence2010According to the principle of the “law of the case,” a trial court “usually declines to reconsider questions decided upon an earlier appeal in the same case.” Peterson v. Hopson, 306 Mass. 597, 599 (1940); Winchester Gables v. Host Marriot Corp., 70 Mass.App.Ct. 585, 593 (2007), citing Markham v. Fay, 884 F.Sup. 594, 603 (D.Mass. 1995), rev’d in part, 74 F.3d 1347 (1st. | 1 | 1 |
Winchester Gables, Inc. v. Host Marriott Corp.green1 sentence2010According to the principle of the “law of the case,” a trial court “usually declines to reconsider questions decided upon an earlier appeal in the same case.” Peterson v. Hopson, 306 Mass. 597, 599 (1940); Winchester Gables v. Host Marriot Corp., 70 Mass.App.Ct. 585, 593 (2007), citing Markham v. Fay, 884 F.Sup. 594, 603 (D.Mass. 1995), rev’d in part, 74 F.3d 1347 (1st. | 1 | 1 |
White v. Peabody Construction Co., Inc.green1 sentence2009White v. Peabody Construction Co., Inc., 386 Mass. 121, 134 (1982). | 1 | 1 |
Whitehouse v. Town of Sherborngreen1 sentence2007A motion to dismiss is an appropriate vehicle for asserting a limitations defense where “the dispositive facts are undisputed and appear on the face of the complaint.” Whitehouse v. Town of Sherborn, 11 Mass.App.Ct. 668, 676 (1982). | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Stephen Jerome Williamsgreen1 sentence2003See United States v. Williams, 684 F.2d 296, 299-300 (4th Cir. 1982), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1110 (1983); United States v. DeTar, 832 F.2d 1110, 1115 (9th Cir. 1987). | 1 | 1 |
The Republic of the Philippines v. Ferdinand E. Marcosgreen1 sentence2003See United States v. Williams, 684 F.2d 296, 299-300 (4th Cir. 1982), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1110 (1983); United States v. DeTar, 832 F.2d 1110, 1115 (9th Cir. 1987). | 1 | 1 |
Johnson v. United Statesgreen1 sentence2003See United States v. Williams, 684 F.2d 296, 299-300 (4th Cir. 1982), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1110 (1983); United States v. DeTar, 832 F.2d 1110, 1115 (9th Cir. 1987). | 1 | 1 |
Bowen v. Eli Lilly & Co.green1 sentence1997See Bowen v. Eli Lilly & Co., 408 Mass. 204, 205-06 (1990). | 1 | 1 |
Pidge v. SUPERINTENDENT, MASS CORRECTIONAL INSTgreen1 sentence1997Statute of Limitations To challenge their disciplinary proceedings and vindicate their state-based claims, the individual plaintiffs should have brought an action in the nature of certiorari within sixty days of the final decision. 35 See Pidge v. Superintendent, Massachusetts Correctional Institution, Cedar Junction, 32 Mass.App.Ct. 14, 17 (1992); G.L.c. 249, §4. | 1 | 1 |
DiGregorio v. Commonwealthgreen1 sentence1988The limitations defense was properly raised in the amended answer filed by Edison and Godfrey in response to the amended complaint (compare DiGregorio v. Commonwealth, 10 Mass. App. Ct. 861, 862-863 [1980]) and by the union and Murphy in their motion to dismiss the amended complaint (compare Epstein v. Seigel, 396 Mass. 278, 279 [1985]). 3. | 1 | 1 |
Epstein v. Seigelgreen1 sentence1988The limitations defense was properly raised in the amended answer filed by Edison and Godfrey in response to the amended complaint (compare DiGregorio v. Commonwealth, 10 Mass. App. Ct. 861, 862-863 [1980]) and by the union and Murphy in their motion to dismiss the amended complaint (compare Epstein v. Seigel, 396 Mass. 278, 279 [1985]). 3. | 1 | 1 |
MacKeen v. Kasinskasgreen1 sentence1985Compare, as to nature and sufficiency of representations, Knight v. Lawrence, 331 Mass. 293, 296-297 (1954); Baglio v. New York Central R.R., at 19-20; LaBonte v. New York, N.H. & Hartford R.R. at 131-132; McKeen v. Kasinskos, 333 Mass. 695, 697 (1956). | 1 | 1 |
Canavan v. Georgegreen1 sentence1985In the absence of circumstances creating an estoppel herein, the defendants’ assertion of a State of Limitations defense will effect a complete bar to any legal remedy for keeper . .. shall be liable for such damage ...” See Rossi v. DelDuca, 344 Mass. 66, 68-69 (1962); Curran v. Burkkardt, 310 Mass. 466, 466-467 (1941); Canavan v. George, 292 Mass. 245, 247 (1935). | 1 | 1 |
Curran v. Burkhardtgreen1 sentence1985In the absence of circumstances creating an estoppel herein, the defendants’ assertion of a State of Limitations defense will effect a complete bar to any legal remedy for keeper . .. shall be liable for such damage ...” See Rossi v. DelDuca, 344 Mass. 66, 68-69 (1962); Curran v. Burkkardt, 310 Mass. 466, 466-467 (1941); Canavan v. George, 292 Mass. 245, 247 (1935). | 1 | 1 |
Rossi v. DelDucagreen1 sentence1985In the absence of circumstances creating an estoppel herein, the defendants’ assertion of a State of Limitations defense will effect a complete bar to any legal remedy for keeper . .. shall be liable for such damage ...” See Rossi v. DelDuca, 344 Mass. 66, 68-69 (1962); Curran v. Burkkardt, 310 Mass. 466, 466-467 (1941); Canavan v. George, 292 Mass. 245, 247 (1935). | 1 | 1 |
Teller v. Schepensgreen1 sentence1985Horning v. Horning, 6 Mass. App. Ct. 109, 110, n. 3 (1978); Teller v. Schepens, 381 Mass. 621, 623 (1980). | 1 | 1 |
Knight v. Lawrencegreen1 sentence1985Compare, as to nature and sufficiency of representations, Knight v. Lawrence, 331 Mass. 293, 296-297 (1954); Baglio v. New York Central R.R., at 19-20; LaBonte v. New York, N.H. & Hartford R.R. at 131-132; McKeen v. Kasinskos, 333 Mass. 695, 697 (1956). | 1 | 1 |
Hornig v. Horniggreen1 sentence1985Horning v. Horning, 6 Mass. App. Ct. 109, 110, n. 3 (1978); Teller v. Schepens, 381 Mass. 621, 623 (1980). | 1 | 1 |
| Commonwealth v. Murphygreen | 1 | 1 |
| Commonwealth v. Fleurantgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Massachusetts. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Harrington v. Costello
green
1 sentence2024Thus, although the default rule is that a claim for defamation accrues (and the limitations clock begins to run) upon publication of the defamatory material, see Harrington, supra at 725 , a plaintiff who sues more than three years after publication can defeat a limitations defense by demonstrating that she neither knew nor should have known of the publication. | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Commonwealth v. Duguay
green
1 sentence2023In his direct appeal, we concluded that the ortho- tolidine screening tests were not unfairly prejudicial without confirmatory testing, particularly where the defendant "freely and repeatedly pointed out the limitations of the test." Id. at 402 . | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Markham, etc v. Fay
green
1 sentence2010According to the principle of the “law of the case,” a trial court “usually declines to reconsider questions decided upon an earlier appeal in the same case.” Peterson v. Hopson, 306 Mass. 597, 599 (1940); Winchester Gables v. Host Marriot Corp., 70 Mass.App.Ct. 585, 593 (2007), citing Markham v. Fay, 884 F.Sup. 594, 603 (D.Mass. 1995), rev’d in part, 74 F.3d 1347 (1st. | 1 | 2010–2010 |
Dziokonski v. Babineau
green
1 sentence2005Beyond this, the determination whether there should be liability for the injury sustained depends on a number of factors, such as where, when, and how the injury, to the third person entered into the consciousness of the claimant, and what degree there was of familial or other relationship between the claimant and the third person.” Id. at 568 . | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Hendrickson v. Sears
green
1 sentence2004Under either statute, the statutory time period commences “after the cause of action accrues.” The defendant appropriately cites to Henrickson v. Sears, 365 Mass. 83 (1974), as establishing the discovery rule doctrine in Massachusetts. | 1 | 2004–2004 |
| Commonwealth v. Mormando yellow | 1 | 1979–1979 |
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.