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 1939–1976 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 |
|---|---|---|
Whitney v. Whitneygreen2 sentences1961Co. 304 Mass. 401, 402-403 . *687 Normally, a judgment for a defendant founded on a demurrer is not a bar to a subsequent action because “such a judgment commonly is based not on the merits but upon the insufficiency of the statement of the cause of action.” Whitney v. Whitney, 299 Mass. 547, 550-551 . 1943The governing principle, as stated in Whitney v. Whitney, 299 Mass. 547, 550-551 , is as follows: “It is a general rule that a judgment for the defendant founded on a demurrer is not a bar to a second action. | 4 | 7 |
Elfman v. Glasergreen2 sentences1975See Whitney v. Whitney, 299 Mass. 547, 550 ; Elfman v. Glaser, 313 Mass. 370, 373-374 . 1971See Whitney v. Whitney, 299 Mass. 547, 551 ; Elfman v. Glaser, 313 Mass. 370, 374-378 . | 1 | 4 |
Friedman v. Connorsgreen1 sentence1940See Friedman v. Connors, 292 Mass. 371, 373, 374 ; Fahy v. Melrose Free Press Inc. 298 Mass. 267 ; Ingalls v. Hastings & Sons Publishing Co. 304 Mass. 31, 34 . | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Massachusetts. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Hacker v. Beck
green
2 sentences1975Thus the court said in Martin v. Hunt, 352 Mass. 774 (1967), a case where motions to dismiss had been sustained successively as to a complaint and amended complaint, judgment entered for the defendant, 8 and the plaintiff tried to institute a fresh action: “It is established that ‘a judgment in . . . [an] earlier action following the sustaining of a demurrer is a bar to a second action for the same cause of action where the plaintiff had been granted leave to amend his earlier declaration and had neglected or refused to do so.’ Hacker v. Beck, 325 Mass. 594, 597 . 1971The plaintiff promptly brought the present action. “[A] judgment in . . . [an] earlier action following the sustaining of a demurrer is a bar to a second action for the same cause of action where the plaintiff had been granted leave to amend his earlier declaration and had neglected or refused to do so.” Hacker v. Beck, 325 Mass. 594, 597 . | 5 | 1961–1975 |
Siegel v. Knott
green
2 sentences1976"The function of a demurrer is to test the sufficiency of the pleading against which it is directed and its scope being thus limited, we cannot in considering a demurrer go beyond the allegations contained in that pleading.” Siegel v. Knott, 316 Mass. 526, 528 , (1944). 1974The plaintiff has failed to state a cause of action against this defendant.” “The function of a demurrer is to test the sufficiency of the pleading against which it is directed and, its scope being thus limited, we cannot in considering a demurrer go beyond the allegations contained in that pleading.” Siegel v. Knott, 316 Mass. 526, 528 . | 2 | 1974–1976 |
Furst v. Furst
green
1 sentence1975Thus the court said in Martin v. Hunt, 352 Mass. 774 (1967), a case where motions to dismiss had been sustained successively as to a complaint and amended complaint, judgment entered for the defendant, 8 and the plaintiff tried to institute a fresh action: “It is established that ‘a judgment in . . . [an] earlier action following the sustaining of a demurrer is a bar to a second action for the same cause of action where the plaintiff had been granted leave to amend his earlier declaration and had neglected or refused to do so.’ Hacker v. Beck, 325 Mass. 594, 597 . | 1 | 1975–1975 |
Ogens v. Northern Industrial Chemical Co.
green
1 sentence1961Co. 304 Mass. 401, 402-403 . *687 Normally, a judgment for a defendant founded on a demurrer is not a bar to a subsequent action because “such a judgment commonly is based not on the merits but upon the insufficiency of the statement of the cause of action.” Whitney v. Whitney, 299 Mass. 547, 550-551 . | 1 | 1961–1961 |
Ratté v. Forand
green
1 sentence1943Ratté v. Forand, 299 Mass. 185 . | 1 | 1943–1943 |
Fahy v. Melrose Free Press Inc.
green
1 sentence1940See Friedman v. Connors, 292 Mass. 371, 373, 374 ; Fahy v. Melrose Free Press Inc. 298 Mass. 267 ; Ingalls v. Hastings & Sons Publishing Co. 304 Mass. 31, 34 . | 1 | 1940–1940 |
Ingalls v. Hastings & Sons Publishing Co.
green
1 sentence1940See Friedman v. Connors, 292 Mass. 371, 373, 374 ; Fahy v. Melrose Free Press Inc. 298 Mass. 267 ; Ingalls v. Hastings & Sons Publishing Co. 304 Mass. 31, 34 . | 1 | 1940–1940 |
Fairbanks v. Newhall
green
1 sentence1939Fairbanks v. Newhall, 222 Mass. 598, 600 . | 1 | 1939–1939 |
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.