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.
18 Massachusetts opinions name it 3 courts 2012–2026 12 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 |
|---|---|---|
Audubon Hill South Condominium Ass'n v. Community Ass'n Underwriters of America, Inc.green2 sentences2026The judge properly determined that, despite its title, the motion did not seek to amend the judgment but to "undo [it] altogether." The judge was thus correct to treat the motion as one for reconsideration, which must be based on "changed circumstances," "a development of relevant law," or "a particular and demonstrable error in the original ruling or decision." Audubon Hill S. Condominium Ass'n v. Community Ass'n Underwriters of Am., Inc., 82 Mass. App. Ct. 461, 470 (2012). 2025“A motion for reconsideration ‘should specify (1) “changed circumstances” such as (a) newly discovered evidence or information, or (b) a development of relevant law; or (2) a particular and demonstrable error in the original ruling or decision.’ ” Blake v. Hometown America Communities, Inc., 486 Mass. 268 , 278 -------------------------------------------- [1] Gerhardt and Seaverns agreed to waive their other claims, and the Court previously dismissed the counterclaims against Gerhardt. -1- (2020), quoting Audubon Hill South Condominium Ass'n v. Community Ass'n Underwriters of Am., Inc., 82 Mas | 12 | 17 |
Peterson v. Hopsongreen2 sentences2025See id., quoting Peterson v. Hopson, 306 Mass. 597, 600 (1940) ("After the denial of one motion, a second motion based on the same grounds need not be entertained"). 2013See Barbosa v. Hopper Feeds, Inc., 404 Mass. 610, 622 (1989); Peterson v. Hopson, supra at 599-600 , and cases cited. | 2 | 3 |
Barbosa v. HOPPER FEEDS. INC.green2 sentences2013See Barbosa v. Hopper Feeds, Inc., 404 Mass. 610, 622 (1989); Peterson v. Hopson, supra at 599-600 , and cases cited. 2012See Peterson v. Hopson, 306 Mass. 597, 600 (1940); Barbosa v. Hopper Feeds, Inc., 404 Mass. 610, 622 (1989). 16 The moving party should specify the appropriate ground or grounds at the outset of the motion. | 2 | 2 |
City Coal Co. of Springfield, Inc. v. Noonangreen1 sentence2024However, in City Coal Co. of Springfield v. Noonan, 434 Mass. 709, 710 (2001) (City Coal III), the Supreme Judicial Court addressed how a partial payment of a monetary judgment must be allocated among principal, prejudgment interest, and postjudgment interest. | 1 | 1 |
M.K. v. D.B.green1 sentence2024A second judge denied their motion, stating that "awarding interest on money [the plaintiffs] now do have would comprise an undue windfall." We agree with the plaintiffs that, as amended, the judgment contained "a particular and demonstrable error." M.K. v. D.B., 102 Mass. App. Ct. 183, 187 (2023), quoting Audubon Hill S. Condominium Ass'n v. Community Ass'n Underwriters of Am., Inc., 82 Mass. App. Ct. 461, 470 (2012).3 In general, "trial judges 3 We reject the defendant's argument that the plaintiffs waived their challenge to the allocation of the partial payment 2 have discretion to consider | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Massachusetts. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
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.