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 3 courts 1915–2018 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 |
|---|---|---|
Commonwealth v. Lazarovichgreen1 sentence2000Commonwealth v. Lazarovich, 410 Mass. 466, 476 (1991). | 1 | 1 |
Cohen v. Hurleygreen1 sentence1999As the Appeals Court declared in Cohen v. Hurley, “We may despair of drawing a line with mathematical exactness, but we have no doubt that the present case is well on the side of privilege." 20 Mass.App.Ct. 439, 442 (1985). | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Millergreen2 sentences1997It’s not being offered for the truth.” Later, after the statement was admitted, the judge called counsel to the side bar and explained his ruling: “I overruled the objection because that information is not being admitted to this jury for the truth of the matter asserted in the statement itself, but rather as a means of challenging the credibility of the defendant when he testified to the effect that he was not involved on earlier occasions in drug trafficking 99 In this court, the Commonwealth abandons the argument the prosecutor put forward in the trial court, and it does not attempt to defen 1997Commonwealth v. Miller, supra, which permits an out-of-court statement to be admitted only for a nontestimonial purpose, is inapposite. | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Helfantgreen1 sentence1995The judge ruled that the testimony was admissible, and the prosecutor, over objection, continued with the questioning concerning the defendant’s temper when drinking in the past and an incident in which the defendant, while intoxicated, attempted to strangle his stepmother. 2 The long-standing rule is that “the prosecution may not introduce evidence that a defendant previously has misbehaved, indictably or not, for the purposes of showing his bad character or propensity to commit the crime charged, but such evidence may be admissible if relevant for some other purpose.” Commonwealth v. Helfant | 1 | 1 |
Federal National Bank v. O'Keefegreen1 sentence1992Compare Federal Nat’l Bank v. O’Keefe, 267 Mass. 75, 82-83 (1929), and Adams v. Yellow Cab Corp., 12 Mass. App. Ct. 931 (1981) (judge responded to counsel’s request for a side bar conference by asking, “What do you want to hide from the jury?”), with Olson v. Ela, 8 Mass. App. Ct 165, 168-169 (1979) (judge’s remarks, *792 although better left unsaid, did not so prejudice plaintiff as to require reversal; judge’s subsequent comments and charge cured error, if any). | 1 | 1 |
Adams v. Yellow Cab Corp.green1 sentence1992Compare Federal Nat’l Bank v. O’Keefe, 267 Mass. 75, 82-83 (1929), and Adams v. Yellow Cab Corp., 12 Mass. App. Ct. 931 (1981) (judge responded to counsel’s request for a side bar conference by asking, “What do you want to hide from the jury?”), with Olson v. Ela, 8 Mass. App. Ct 165, 168-169 (1979) (judge’s remarks, *792 although better left unsaid, did not so prejudice plaintiff as to require reversal; judge’s subsequent comments and charge cured error, if any). | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Hawleygreen2 sentences1991The instructions the jury actually heard from the judge were lacking in “capacity actually to reach to the trouble generated in the jury’s mind.” Commonwealth v. Hawley, 380 Mass. 70, 86 (1980). 1991Following the side bar conference the judge told the jury that “any verdict of jurors will not be based on sympathy, pity, bias, or prejudice, but it will be on the evidence.” In the final instruction, in pertinent part, the judge rather perfunctorily told the jury that “[t]he openings and the closings of counsel are not evidence” and that they were to “decide the case solely upon the facts you find from the evidence” and not “on the basis of bias, prejudice, sympathy, or pity, but upon the evidence.” See Commonwealth v. Hawley, 380 Mass. at 85 ; Commonwealth v. Sevieri, 21 Mass. App. Ct. at 7 | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Portergreen1 sentence1991Compare Commonwealth v. Porter, 24 Mass. App. Ct. at 697-698 ; Commonwealth v. Cobb, 26 Mass. App. Ct. at 287 . | 1 | 1 |
White v. Apsley Rubber Co.green1 sentence1985Compare decisions where abuse has been found, White v. Apsley Rubber Co., 181 Mass. 339, 341 (1902), Malone v. Belcher, 216 Mass. 209, 210-212 (1913), Reardon v. Sadd, 262 Mass. 345, 348 (1928), Jacoby v. Spector, 292 Mass. 366, 369 (1935), Lorusso v. Bloom, 321 Mass. 9, 10 (1947), with those holding to the contrary, Gabriel v. Borowy, 324 Mass. 231, 236-237 (1949); Noyes v. Shanahan, 325 Mass. 601, 604-605 (1950); Quaranto v. Silverman, 345 Mass. 423, 426-428 (1963); Jones v. Brockton Pub. | 1 | 1 |
Malone v. Belchergreen1 sentence1985Compare decisions where abuse has been found, White v. Apsley Rubber Co., 181 Mass. 339, 341 (1902), Malone v. Belcher, 216 Mass. 209, 210-212 (1913), Reardon v. Sadd, 262 Mass. 345, 348 (1928), Jacoby v. Spector, 292 Mass. 366, 369 (1935), Lorusso v. Bloom, 321 Mass. 9, 10 (1947), with those holding to the contrary, Gabriel v. Borowy, 324 Mass. 231, 236-237 (1949); Noyes v. Shanahan, 325 Mass. 601, 604-605 (1950); Quaranto v. Silverman, 345 Mass. 423, 426-428 (1963); Jones v. Brockton Pub. | 1 | 1 |
Reardon v. Saddgreen1 sentence1985Compare decisions where abuse has been found, White v. Apsley Rubber Co., 181 Mass. 339, 341 (1902), Malone v. Belcher, 216 Mass. 209, 210-212 (1913), Reardon v. Sadd, 262 Mass. 345, 348 (1928), Jacoby v. Spector, 292 Mass. 366, 369 (1935), Lorusso v. Bloom, 321 Mass. 9, 10 (1947), with those holding to the contrary, Gabriel v. Borowy, 324 Mass. 231, 236-237 (1949); Noyes v. Shanahan, 325 Mass. 601, 604-605 (1950); Quaranto v. Silverman, 345 Mass. 423, 426-428 (1963); Jones v. Brockton Pub. | 1 | 1 |
Jacoby v. Spectorgreen1 sentence1985Compare decisions where abuse has been found, White v. Apsley Rubber Co., 181 Mass. 339, 341 (1902), Malone v. Belcher, 216 Mass. 209, 210-212 (1913), Reardon v. Sadd, 262 Mass. 345, 348 (1928), Jacoby v. Spector, 292 Mass. 366, 369 (1935), Lorusso v. Bloom, 321 Mass. 9, 10 (1947), with those holding to the contrary, Gabriel v. Borowy, 324 Mass. 231, 236-237 (1949); Noyes v. Shanahan, 325 Mass. 601, 604-605 (1950); Quaranto v. Silverman, 345 Mass. 423, 426-428 (1963); Jones v. Brockton Pub. | 1 | 1 |
Lorusso v. Bloomgreen1 sentence1985Compare decisions where abuse has been found, White v. Apsley Rubber Co., 181 Mass. 339, 341 (1902), Malone v. Belcher, 216 Mass. 209, 210-212 (1913), Reardon v. Sadd, 262 Mass. 345, 348 (1928), Jacoby v. Spector, 292 Mass. 366, 369 (1935), Lorusso v. Bloom, 321 Mass. 9, 10 (1947), with those holding to the contrary, Gabriel v. Borowy, 324 Mass. 231, 236-237 (1949); Noyes v. Shanahan, 325 Mass. 601, 604-605 (1950); Quaranto v. Silverman, 345 Mass. 423, 426-428 (1963); Jones v. Brockton Pub. | 1 | 1 |
Gabriel v. Borowygreen1 sentence1985Compare decisions where abuse has been found, White v. Apsley Rubber Co., 181 Mass. 339, 341 (1902), Malone v. Belcher, 216 Mass. 209, 210-212 (1913), Reardon v. Sadd, 262 Mass. 345, 348 (1928), Jacoby v. Spector, 292 Mass. 366, 369 (1935), Lorusso v. Bloom, 321 Mass. 9, 10 (1947), with those holding to the contrary, Gabriel v. Borowy, 324 Mass. 231, 236-237 (1949); Noyes v. Shanahan, 325 Mass. 601, 604-605 (1950); Quaranto v. Silverman, 345 Mass. 423, 426-428 (1963); Jones v. Brockton Pub. | 1 | 1 |
Quaranto v. Silvermangreen1 sentence1985Compare decisions where abuse has been found, White v. Apsley Rubber Co., 181 Mass. 339, 341 (1902), Malone v. Belcher, 216 Mass. 209, 210-212 (1913), Reardon v. Sadd, 262 Mass. 345, 348 (1928), Jacoby v. Spector, 292 Mass. 366, 369 (1935), Lorusso v. Bloom, 321 Mass. 9, 10 (1947), with those holding to the contrary, Gabriel v. Borowy, 324 Mass. 231, 236-237 (1949); Noyes v. Shanahan, 325 Mass. 601, 604-605 (1950); Quaranto v. Silverman, 345 Mass. 423, 426-428 (1963); Jones v. Brockton Pub. | 1 | 1 |
Noyes v. Shanahangreen1 sentence1985Compare decisions where abuse has been found, White v. Apsley Rubber Co., 181 Mass. 339, 341 (1902), Malone v. Belcher, 216 Mass. 209, 210-212 (1913), Reardon v. Sadd, 262 Mass. 345, 348 (1928), Jacoby v. Spector, 292 Mass. 366, 369 (1935), Lorusso v. Bloom, 321 Mass. 9, 10 (1947), with those holding to the contrary, Gabriel v. Borowy, 324 Mass. 231, 236-237 (1949); Noyes v. Shanahan, 325 Mass. 601, 604-605 (1950); Quaranto v. Silverman, 345 Mass. 423, 426-428 (1963); Jones v. Brockton Pub. | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Haywoodgreen1 sentence1985See Commonwealth v. Haywood, 377 Mass. 755, 761 (1979). | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Liakosgreen1 sentence1984See and compare Commonwealth v. Liakos, 12 Mass. App. Ct. 57, 63 (1981). 2 *32 In his clarifying instruction, the judge asked the jurors to deliberate again on the two counts as to which they had agreed on a verdict. | 1 | 1 |
Davis v. Hotels Statler Co. Inc.green1 sentence1982See Davis v. Hotels Statler Co., 327 Mass. 28, 29-30 (1951). 4. | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Manninggreen1 sentence1976May I see you at the side bar, please?” Defendant’s counsel: “Your Honor, based on the testimony of this witness, the defendant Lee once again renews his motion for a mistrial on the ground of prejudicing the jury.” The judge: “I am not going to allow that, and I will give a curative instruction.” 4 The defendant’s reliance on the rationale of Commonwealth v. Manning, 367 Mass. 605, 610 (1975), does not aid him. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Massachusetts. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Commonwealth v. Woods
green
1 sentence2018Commonwealth v. Woods , 419 Mass. 366 , 372 (1995). | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Commonwealth v. Sevieri
green
1 sentence1991Following the side bar conference the judge told the jury that “any verdict of jurors will not be based on sympathy, pity, bias, or prejudice, but it will be on the evidence.” In the final instruction, in pertinent part, the judge rather perfunctorily told the jury that “[t]he openings and the closings of counsel are not evidence” and that they were to “decide the case solely upon the facts you find from the evidence” and not “on the basis of bias, prejudice, sympathy, or pity, but upon the evidence.” See Commonwealth v. Hawley, 380 Mass. at 85 ; Commonwealth v. Sevieri, 21 Mass. App. Ct. at 7 | 1 | 1991–1991 |
Commonwealth v. Cobb
green
1 sentence1991Compare Commonwealth v. Porter, 24 Mass. App. Ct. at 697-698 ; Commonwealth v. Cobb, 26 Mass. App. Ct. at 287 . | 1 | 1991–1991 |
Commonwealth v. St. Pierre
green
1 sentence1981Pierre, 377 Mass. at 656 n.6, after which the defendants were bound over to the grand jury. 6 The defendants’ assertions that the judge “cut them off” from doing this do not withstand a reading of the transcript of the side bar conference held on this issue. | 1 | 1981–1981 |
Commonwealth v. Simpson
green
1 sentence1980Commonwealth v. Simpson, 6 Mass. App. Ct. 856 (1978). 1 On March 26, 1979, the defend ant filed a pro se motion for a new trial, alleging (1) that he was tried for the rape of a white woman before a jury containing no blacks and that all of the blacks called to be seated were “taken off by theD.A.,” and (2) that after a jury had been empanelled defense counsel made a motion, which was heard at the side bar, seeking to require the assistant district attorney to refer to the defendant as “Simpson” and not as “Woods” or “Bell.” The defendant stated that he had heard the assistant district attorne | 1 | 1980–1980 |
Twiss v. Boston Elevated Railway Co.
green
1 sentence1915In sustaining the ruling this court said, "There may be circumstances, such as the crowded condition of the car, which justify him in standing or being upon the running board.” In Twiss v. Boston Elevated Railway, 208 Mass. 108 , the plaintiff was injured while on the left hand running board with the side bar down in violation of a rule with which he was familiar, which rule provided that no one was allowed to ride on the running board when the bar was down. | 1 | 1915–1915 |
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.