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.
13 Massachusetts opinions name it 3 courts 1984–2026 1 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 |
|---|---|---|
Strom v. American Honda Motor Co.green2 sentences2004Otherwise, amendments to an analogous federal rule should be regarded as persuasive evidence (though not binding authority) of how a comparable Massachusetts rule of procedure should be interpreted because of the desirability of national uniformity, particularly in a matter such as this, which is likely to involve litigants with contacts in many jurisdictions." Strom v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc., 423 Mass. 330, 335 (1996). 2004“Otherwise, amendments to an analogous federal rule should be regarded as persuasive evidence (though not binding authority) of how a comparable Massachusetts rule of procedure should be interpreted because of the desirability of national uniformity, particularly in a matter such as this, which is likely to involve litigants with contacts in many jurisdictions.” Strom v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc., 423 Mass. 330, 335 (1996). | 2 | 2 |
Dinsdale v. Commonwealthgreen2 sentences2004See also Clean Harbors of Braintree, Inc. v. Board of Braintree, 415 Mass. 876 , 885 n.8 (1993) (“We give our rules the construction given to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, absent compelling reasons to the contrary”); Dinsdale v. Commonwealth, 39 Mass.App.Ct. 926, 928 (1995) (“The Massachusetts Rules of Civil Procedure are construed in conformity with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure absent compelling reasons to the contrary”). 2004See also Clean Harbors of Braintree, Inc. v. Board of Braintree, 415 Mass. 876 , 885 n. 8 (1993) (“We give our rules the construction given to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, absent compelling reasons to the contrary”); Din sdale v. Commonwealth, 39 Mass.App.Ct. 926, 928 (1995) (“The Massachusetts Rules of Civil Procedure are construed in conformity with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure absent compelling reasons to the contrary”). | 2 | 2 |
Clean Harbors of Braintree, Inc. v. BD. OF BRAINTREEgreen2 sentences2004See also Clean Harbors of Braintree, Inc. v. Board of Braintree, 415 Mass. 876 , 885 n.8 (1993) (“We give our rules the construction given to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, absent compelling reasons to the contrary”); Dinsdale v. Commonwealth, 39 Mass.App.Ct. 926, 928 (1995) (“The Massachusetts Rules of Civil Procedure are construed in conformity with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure absent compelling reasons to the contrary”). 2004See also Clean Harbors of Braintree, Inc. v. Board of Braintree, 415 Mass. 876 , 885 n. 8 (1993) (“We give our rules the construction given to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, absent compelling reasons to the contrary”); Din sdale v. Commonwealth, 39 Mass.App.Ct. 926, 928 (1995) (“The Massachusetts Rules of Civil Procedure are construed in conformity with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure absent compelling reasons to the contrary”). | 2 | 2 |
Ashcroft v. Iqbalgreen1 sentence2026As the United States Supreme Court has explained in discussing the analogous Federal standard, determining whether a complaint states a plausible claim for relief is "a context- specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial experience and common sense." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679 (2009). | 1 | 1 |
Retha Weems v. Tyson Foodsgreen1 sentence2020Id.6 Lastly, several United States Courts of Appeals have held that, under the analogous Federal rule, "a dispute need not 'crystalize to the point of threatened litigation' for the . . . exclusion rule to apply." Weems v. Tyson Foods, Inc., 665 F.3d 958, 965 (8th Cir. 2011), quoting Affiliated Mfrs., Inc. v. Aluminum Co. of Am., 56 F.3d 521, 527 (3d Cir. 1995). | 1 | 1 |
Affiliated Manufacturers, Inc. v. Aluminum Company of Americagreen1 sentence2020Id.6 Lastly, several United States Courts of Appeals have held that, under the analogous Federal rule, "a dispute need not 'crystalize to the point of threatened litigation' for the . . . exclusion rule to apply." Weems v. Tyson Foods, Inc., 665 F.3d 958, 965 (8th Cir. 2011), quoting Affiliated Mfrs., Inc. v. Aluminum Co. of Am., 56 F.3d 521, 527 (3d Cir. 1995). | 1 | 1 |
Reilly v. Txu Corp.green1 sentence2012See Reilly, supra at 490 . | 1 | 1 |
Hickman v. Taylorgreen1 sentence2012Unlike the minority view, which imposes an artificial stricture on the analogous Federal rule, this scheme allows legitimate corrective changes and advances the underlying purpose of the discovery process, i.e., “for the parties to obtain the fullest possible knowledge of the issues and facts before trial.” Strom v. American Honda Motor Co., supra at 336, quoting Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495, 501 (1947). | 1 | 1 |
In Re Gabapentin Patent Litigationgreen1 sentence2012P. 12(b)(6).” In re Gabapentin Patent Litigation, 648 F. Supp. 2d 641, 647 (D.N.J. 2009) (construing the analogous Federal rule). | 1 | 1 |
cluster 307262green1 sentence2003See id.; Walton v. Eaton Corp., 563 F.2d 66, 74-75 (3d Cir. 1977); Cox v. Babcock & Wilcox Co., 471 F.2d 13, 15 (4th Cir. 1972).” Although the language of Massachusetts’ Proposed Rule 803(8) tracks the language of the analogous federal rule, judicial interpretation of the two rules differs. | 1 | 1 |
cluster 349462green1 sentence2003See id.; Walton v. Eaton Corp., 563 F.2d 66, 74-75 (3d Cir. 1977); Cox v. Babcock & Wilcox Co., 471 F.2d 13, 15 (4th Cir. 1972).” Although the language of Massachusetts’ Proposed Rule 803(8) tracks the language of the analogous federal rule, judicial interpretation of the two rules differs. | 1 | 1 |
Benjamin Quirindongo Pacheco v. Jose L. Rolon Moralesgreen1 sentence2001Pacheco v. Morales, 953 F.2d 15, 16 (1st Cir. 1992). | 1 | 1 |
Noah Greenspun v. Eugene F. Bogan, (Two Cases). Appeal of Joseph Steir. Appeal of Morgan Guaranty Trust Company of New Yorkgreen1 sentence1999See Greenspun v. Bogan, 492 F.2d 375, 378 (1st Cir. 1974) (court must safeguard interests of shareholders not directly involved in suit); Sniffin v. Prudential Ins. | 1 | 1 |
Gabriel v. Borowygreen1 sentence1997“To constitute a cause of action for [abuse of process] it must appear that the process was used to accomplish some ulterior purpose for which it was not designed or intended, or which was not the legitimate purpose of the particular process employed.” Gabriel v. Borowy, 324 Mass. 231, 236 (1949). | 1 | 1 |
cluster 424892green1 sentence1997See, under the analogous Federal rule, Stewart v. Thigpen, 730 F.2d 1002 , 1006 n.2 (5th Cir. 1984); Acosta v. Honda Motor Co., 717 F.2d 828, 832 (3d Cir. 1983). | 1 | 1 |
Stewart v. Thigpengreen1 sentence1997See, under the analogous Federal rule, Stewart v. Thigpen, 730 F.2d 1002 , 1006 n.2 (5th Cir. 1984); Acosta v. Honda Motor Co., 717 F.2d 828, 832 (3d Cir. 1983). | 1 | 1 |
Marion Davis v. Marathon Oil Companygreen1 sentence1984See also Davis v. Marathon Oil Co., 528 F.2d 395, 403 (6th Cir. 1975), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 823 (1976); Tabatchnick v. G. | 1 | 1 |
Turk v. United Statesgreen1 sentence1984See also Davis v. Marathon Oil Co., 528 F.2d 395, 403 (6th Cir. 1975), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 823 (1976); Tabatchnick v. G. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Massachusetts. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Griggs v. Provident Consumer Discount Co.
green
2 sentences1986Because of a split in the application of rule 4(a)(4) by the Courts of Appeal, the Supreme Court construed the new rule in Griggs v. Provident Consumer Discount Co., 459 U.S. 56 (1982). 1985Because of a split in the application of rule 4(a)(4) by the Courts of Appeal, the Supreme Court construed the new rule in Griggs v. Provident Consumer Discount Co., 459 U.S. 56 (1982). | 2 | 1985–1986 |
Swampscott Education Ass'n v. Town of Swampscott
green
1 sentence1985Assn. v. Swampscott, 391 Mass. at 865 ; Hutchinson v. Hutchinson, 6 Mass. App. Ct. at 707 . *302 The change in the second paragraph of Mass.R.A.P. 4(a) which became effective January 1, 1985, tracks an amendment made to the analogous Federal rule in 1979, and which appears as new Fed.R.A.P. 4(a)(4). | 1 | 1985–1985 |
Hutchinson v. Hutchinson
green
1 sentence1985Assn. v. Swampscott, 391 Mass. at 865 ; Hutchinson v. Hutchinson, 6 Mass. App. Ct. at 707 . *302 The change in the second paragraph of Mass.R.A.P. 4(a) which became effective January 1, 1985, tracks an amendment made to the analogous Federal rule in 1979, and which appears as new Fed.R.A.P. 4(a)(4). | 1 | 1985–1985 |
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.