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.
14 Massachusetts opinions name it 2 courts 1994–2018 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 |
|---|---|---|
In the Matter of Saabgreen2 sentences2018The committee is "the sole judge of the credibility of the testimony presented at the hearing." Matter of Saab , 406 Mass. 315 , 328, 547 N.E.2d 919 (1989), quoting S.J.C. 2018The committee is "the sole judge of the credibility of the testimony presented at the hearing." Matter of Saab , 406 Mass. 315 , 328, 547 N.E.2d 919 (1989), quoting S.J.C. | 8 | 11 |
In re Barrettgreen1 sentence2009Its credibility determinations “will not be rejected unless it can be ‘said with certainty’ that [a] finding was ‘wholly inconsistent with another implicit finding.’ ” Matter of Barrett, 447 Mass. 453, 460 (2006), quoting Matter of Hachey, 11 Mass. Att’y Discipline Rep. 102, 103 (1995). 3. | 1 | 1 |
In re Fordhamgreen1 sentence2007Rule 4:01, § 8 (4), as appearing in 425 Mass. 1309 (1997). “[Ajlthough not binding on this court, the findings and recommendations of the board are entitled to great weight.” Matter of Fordham, 423 Mass. 481, 487 (1996), cert, denied, 519 U.S. 1149 (1997). [Subsidiary facts found by the [bjoard and contained in its report. . . shall be upheld if supported by substantial evidence, upon consideration of the record.” S.J.C. | 1 | 1 |
In re Mayberrygreen1 sentence1999Rule 4:01, § 8 (3), as appearing in 381 Mass. 784 (1980), is unconstitutional because it allows an attorney to be punished on proof by a preponderance of the evidence as opposed to “clear and convincing evidence.” “[B]ar discipline charges need only be proven by a preponderance of the evidence,” Matter of Budnitz, 425 Mass. 1018 , 1018 n.1 (1997), citing Matter of Mayberry, 295 Mass. 155, 167 (1936), and the respondent’s constitutional claim is without merit. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Massachusetts. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Kelly's Case
neutral
1 sentence2018While the administrative judge found that Rivera's surgery rendered him "totally" disabled from performing the duties of a correction officer, that finding "is of little use ... since one can be 'totally' disabled temporarily or permanently." Kelly's Case , 78 Mass. App. Ct. 907 , 909 (2011). | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Arkansas Term Limits v. Donovan
green
1 sentence2007Rule 4:01, § 8 (4), as appearing in 425 Mass. 1309 (1997). “[Ajlthough not binding on this court, the findings and recommendations of the board are entitled to great weight.” Matter of Fordham, 423 Mass. 481, 487 (1996), cert, denied, 519 U.S. 1149 (1997). [Subsidiary facts found by the [bjoard and contained in its report. . . shall be upheld if supported by substantial evidence, upon consideration of the record.” S.J.C. | 1 | 2007–2007 |
In re Segal
green
1 sentence2002Rule 4:01, § 8 (3), as appearing in 382 Mass. 784 (1980) (“Our rules concerning bar discipline . . . accord to the hearing committee the position of ‘the sole judge of the credibility of the testimony presented at the hearing’ ”); Matter of Hachey, 11 Mass. Att’y Discipline Rep. 102, 103 (1995) (hearing committee acts like jury in making credibility finding which may not be rejected unless it can be “said with certainty” that finding was “wholly inconsistent with another implicit finding”). “[A]s long as there is substantial evidence, we do not disturb the board’s finding, even if we would hav | 1 | 2002–2002 |
In re Budnitz
green
1 sentence1999Rule 4:01, § 8 (3), as appearing in 381 Mass. 784 (1980), is unconstitutional because it allows an attorney to be punished on proof by a preponderance of the evidence as opposed to “clear and convincing evidence.” “[B]ar discipline charges need only be proven by a preponderance of the evidence,” Matter of Budnitz, 425 Mass. 1018 , 1018 n.1 (1997), citing Matter of Mayberry, 295 Mass. 155, 167 (1936), and the respondent’s constitutional claim is without merit. | 1 | 1999–1999 |
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.