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.
15 Massachusetts opinions name it 2 courts 1966–2014 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 |
|---|---|---|
Doe, Sex Offender Registry Board No. 3844 v. Sex Offender Registry Boardgreen2 sentences2012After being required to register, the offender proceeds to a two-step classification process beginning with an initial classification by the board followed by final classification based either on a de nova hearing or on the sex offender’s failure to object to the initial classification. 9 Doe, Sex Offender Registry Bd. No. 3844 v. Sex Offender Registry Bd., 447 Mass. 768, 771-772 (2006). 2012Doe, Sex Offender Registry Bd. No. 3844 v. Sex Offender Registry Bd., 447 Mass. 768, 776 (2006). | 2 | 2 |
Sullivan v. Municipal Court of the Roxbury Districtgreen2 sentences2006Sullivan v. Municipal Court of the Roxbury Dist., 322 Mass. 566, 572 (1948) (interpreting earlier version of statute); Leominster v. Stratton, 58 Mass. App. Ct. 726, 727-728 (2003). 1966See Sullivan v. Municipal Court of the Roxbury Dist. 322 Mass. 566, 572 . | 2 | 2 |
Board of Appeals of Hanover v. Housing Appeals Comm.green2 sentences2008While the HAC provides a de nova hearing, id. at 368-371 , this standard of review applies only to the limited issues before it. 1991See Board of Appeals of Hanover v. Housing Appeals Comm., 363 Mass. 339, 371 (1973). | 1 | 2 |
Fortenbacher v. Commonwealthgreen1 sentence2014See, e.g., Hopper v. Callahan, 408 Mass. 621, 623-624 (1990) (party sought interlocutory appeal from denial of its motion for summary judgment; on direct appellate review, court examined summary judgment record de nova); Fortenbacher v. Commonwealth, 72 Mass. App. Ct. 82, 85 (2008) (reviewing de nova Commonwealth’s interlocutory appeal from denial of its motion for summary judgment). | 1 | 1 |
Hopper v. Callahangreen1 sentence2014See, e.g., Hopper v. Callahan, 408 Mass. 621, 623-624 (1990) (party sought interlocutory appeal from denial of its motion for summary judgment; on direct appellate review, court examined summary judgment record de nova); Fortenbacher v. Commonwealth, 72 Mass. App. Ct. 82, 85 (2008) (reviewing de nova Commonwealth’s interlocutory appeal from denial of its motion for summary judgment). | 1 | 1 |
City of Leominster v. Strattongreen1 sentence2006Sullivan v. Municipal Court of the Roxbury Dist., 322 Mass. 566, 572 (1948) (interpreting earlier version of statute); Leominster v. Stratton, 58 Mass. App. Ct. 726, 727-728 (2003). | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Zagranskigreen1 sentence2004See Commonwealth v. Zagranski, 408 Mass. 278, 285 (1990) (“an utterance is spontaneous if it is made under the influence of an exciting event and before the declarant has had time to contrive or fabricate the remark, and thus it has sufficient indicia of reliability”); Commonwealth v. Whelton, 428 Mass. 24, 26 (1998) (same). (3) No harm was caused the Durbins as a result of the District Court judge’s denial of “Requested Rulings of Law” Nos. 4, 11, and 12, because even if each dog subject to a hearing and order under G. | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Wheltongreen1 sentence2004See Commonwealth v. Zagranski, 408 Mass. 278, 285 (1990) (“an utterance is spontaneous if it is made under the influence of an exciting event and before the declarant has had time to contrive or fabricate the remark, and thus it has sufficient indicia of reliability”); Commonwealth v. Whelton, 428 Mass. 24, 26 (1998) (same). (3) No harm was caused the Durbins as a result of the District Court judge’s denial of “Requested Rulings of Law” Nos. 4, 11, and 12, because even if each dog subject to a hearing and order under G. | 1 | 1 |
Zoning Board of Appeals v. Housing Appeals Committeegreen1 sentence1991Based upon the judge’s statements in his memorandum of decision, that the board’s decisions were supported by substantial evidence, and his reference to Board of Appeals of Wellesley v. Housing Appeals Comm., 385 Mass. 651, 657 (1982), the plaintiffs claim that so much deference was given to the board’s findings that they were denied a true de nova hearing. | 1 | 1 |
United Food Corp. v. Alcoholic Beverages Control Commissiongreen1 sentence1990United Food Corp., 375 Mass. at 240, 243 . | 1 | 1 |
Fulton v. Gauthiergreen1 sentence1990Fulton v. Gauthier, 357 Mass. 116, 117-118 (1970). | 1 | 1 |
Cavanaugh v. DiFlumeragreen1 sentence1984There is nothing to the contrary in Cavanaugh v. DiFlumera, 9 Mass. App. Ct. 396, 402 (1980). 6 These observations include the following: “The inspection of the shoreline from the vessel showed the existence of numerous substantial houses built within or approximately at 100 feet from high water mark and protected, to whatever extent, in some cases by ledge similar to that at the locus, in others by sea walls rising from the beach or ledge to such a number and extent that the Court finds that wisely or unwisely, the locus as a building site in this single residential district is not by any mea | 1 | 1 |
D. Franklin Wishart, and v. Paul J. McDonald Andgreen1 sentence1983See also Wishart v. McDonald, 500 F.2d 1110, 1115 (1st Cir. 1974) (In a de nova hearing under § 43A, the teacher “would seek not some restrictive ‘review’ in state court, but would receive an entirely new hearing at which the school committee has the burden of supporting the discharge”). | 1 | 1 |
Luacaw v. Fire Commissioner of Bostongreen1 sentence1971See Luacaw v. Fire Commr. of Boston, 350 Mass. 326, 330 . 2. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Massachusetts. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. Bruch
green
2 sentences1990After judgment had been entered in the Superior Court, the Supreme Court of the United States decided Firestone Tire & *752 Rubber Co. v. Bruch, 109 S. Ct. 948 (1989), in which the Court held that, in actions under 29 U.S.C. § 1132 (a)(1), challenges to the denial of benefits, at least those concerning “denials of benefits based on plan interpretation” (id. at 953), are “to be reviewed under a de nova standard unless the benefit plan gives the administrator or fiduciary discretionary authority to determine eligibility for benefits or to construe the terms of the plan.” Id. at 956 . 1990After judgment had been entered in the Superior Court, the Supreme Court of the United States decided Firestone Tire & *752 Rubber Co. v. Bruch, 109 S. Ct. 948 (1989), in which the Court held that, in actions under 29 U.S.C. § 1132 (a)(1), challenges to the denial of benefits, at least those concerning “denials of benefits based on plan interpretation” (id. at 953), are “to be reviewed under a de nova standard unless the benefit plan gives the administrator or fiduciary discretionary authority to determine eligibility for benefits or to construe the terms of the plan.” Id. at 956 . | 1 | 1990–1990 |
Gentile v. Rent Control Board of Somerville
green
1 sentence1986It is the opportunity for the exercise of judgment and discretion and for the utilization of expertise which point to the proper form of review. 10 In conducting a de nova hearing, the District Court judge expressly relied on Gentile v. Rent Control Bd. of Somerville, 365 Mass. 343 (1974), Mayo v. Boston Rent Control Admr., 365 Mass. 575 (1974), and Tosi v. Boston Rent Control Bd., 13 Mass. App. Ct. 921 (1982). | 1 | 1986–1986 |
Mayo v. Boston Rent Control Administrator
green
1 sentence1986It is the opportunity for the exercise of judgment and discretion and for the utilization of expertise which point to the proper form of review. 10 In conducting a de nova hearing, the District Court judge expressly relied on Gentile v. Rent Control Bd. of Somerville, 365 Mass. 343 (1974), Mayo v. Boston Rent Control Admr., 365 Mass. 575 (1974), and Tosi v. Boston Rent Control Bd., 13 Mass. App. Ct. 921 (1982). | 1 | 1986–1986 |
Tosi v. Boston Rent Control Board
neutral
1 sentence1986It is the opportunity for the exercise of judgment and discretion and for the utilization of expertise which point to the proper form of review. 10 In conducting a de nova hearing, the District Court judge expressly relied on Gentile v. Rent Control Bd. of Somerville, 365 Mass. 343 (1974), Mayo v. Boston Rent Control Admr., 365 Mass. 575 (1974), and Tosi v. Boston Rent Control Bd., 13 Mass. App. Ct. 921 (1982). | 1 | 1986–1986 |
Commonwealth v. Proctor
green
1 sentence1971On September 9, 1968, an order for a decree (remanding the matter to the board for a de nova hearing) was made prior to our decision on April 2, 1969, in Commonwealth v. Proctor, 355 Mass. 504 . | 1 | 1971–1971 |
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.