13 Massachusetts opinions name it 4 courts 1914–2025 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 |
|---|---|---|
Commonwealth v. Williamsgreen1 sentence2025To the contrary, "[t]here was no error because the giving of such an instruction is never required." Commonwealth v. Williams, 439 Mass. 678, 687 (2003). | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Torresgreen1 sentence2017See Commonwealth v. Torres , 469 Mass. 398 , 409 (2014). | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Jonesgreen1 sentence2014The defendant maintains that an evidentiary hearing on the motion was required, given that recantation by witnesses requires “serious consideration from the motion judge.” See Commonwealth v. Jones, 432 Mass. 623, 632-633 (2000), quoting Commonwealth v. Watson, 377 Mass. 814, 837-838 (1979), S.C., 409 Mass. 110 (1991). | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Ortizgreen1 sentence2014In denying the motion for a new trial without a hearing, the motion judge properly “[took] into account his knowledge of what occurred at trial [in order to] assess questions of credibility.” Commonwealth v. Ortiz, 393 Mass. 523, 536-537 (1984), citing Commonwealth v. Little, 384 Mass. 262, 269 (1981). | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Watsongreen1 sentence2014The defendant maintains that an evidentiary hearing on the motion was required, given that recantation by witnesses requires “serious consideration from the motion judge.” See Commonwealth v. Jones, 432 Mass. 623, 632-633 (2000), quoting Commonwealth v. Watson, 377 Mass. 814, 837-838 (1979), S.C., 409 Mass. 110 (1991). | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Littlegreen1 sentence2014In denying the motion for a new trial without a hearing, the motion judge properly “[took] into account his knowledge of what occurred at trial [in order to] assess questions of credibility.” Commonwealth v. Ortiz, 393 Mass. 523, 536-537 (1984), citing Commonwealth v. Little, 384 Mass. 262, 269 (1981). | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Wallisgreen1 sentence2010Commonwealth v. Wallis, 440 Mass. 589, 596 (2003). | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Saferiangreen1 sentence2001To prevail on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, the defendant must demonstrate that “there has been serious incompetency, inefficiency, or inattention of counsel — behavior of counsel falling measurably below that which might be expected from an ordinary fallible lawyer — and, if that is found, then, typically, whether it has likely deprived the defendant of an otherwise available, substantial ground of defence.” Commonwealth v. Saferian, 366 Mass. 89, 96 (1974). | 1 | 1 |
Fogarty v. Commonwealthgreen1 sentence1992“The choice of deciding the motion on the basis of affidavits or hearing oral testimony is left largely to the sound discretion of the judge.” Fogarty v. Commonwealth, 406 Mass. 103, 110 (1989). | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Smithgreen1 sentence1991Viewing the entire record (which includes the prior proceedings in this court) and acknowledging that the judge properly could determine credibility adversely to the defendant (see Commonwealth v. Smith, 29 Mass. App. Ct. 449, 453-454 [1990]), we think that the judge erred in not allowing oral testimony or some further interrogation of the police affiant. | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Popegreen1 sentence1991See Commonwealth v. Pope, 392 Mass. 493 , 497 n.5 (1984) (grounds for seeking new trial must be raised in motion); Mass. R. | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Stewartgreen1 sentence1986Commonwealth v. Stewart, 383 Mass. 253, 257 (1981). | 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. Watson
green
1 sentence2014The defendant maintains that an evidentiary hearing on the motion was required, given that recantation by witnesses requires “serious consideration from the motion judge.” See Commonwealth v. Jones, 432 Mass. 623, 632-633 (2000), quoting Commonwealth v. Watson, 377 Mass. 814, 837-838 (1979), S.C., 409 Mass. 110 (1991). | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Commonwealth v. Nine Hundred & Ninety-Two Dollars
green
1 sentence1991The defendant now challenges the trial judge’s denial of his motion for a new trial without a hearing. 1 The principal contention underlying his motion for a new trial is that the affidavit in support of the search warrant contained deliberate falsehoods as to the past reliability of the confidential informant. 2 See Commonwealth v. Nine Hundred & Ninety-two Dollars, 383 Mass. 764 , 767-768 & nn. 5 & 6 (1981). | 1 | 1991–1991 |
Muto v. Deslauriers
green
1 sentence1943If, however, the plaintiff has a right to claim error with regard to any requests filed by the defendants which were given by the trial court (Mute v. Deslauriers, 292 Mass. 405 ), it is sufficient to say that whether there was consideration for the note, was a question of fact for the trial court We are of opinion that the action of the trial court was without error and the report is, therefore, dismissed. | 1 | 1943–1943 |
Hutchins v. Nickerson
green
1 sentence1929The rights of the plaintiff against the trustee in trustee process, and his rights against the main defendant, are so far distinct and severable that a decision respecting each may be treated as final for the purpose of bringing proceedings to this court without violation of the rule of Hutchins v. Nickerson, supra. Reynolds v. Missouri, Kansas & Texas Railway, 224 Mass. 253, 254 ; S. C. 224 Mass. 379 . | 1 | 1929–1929 |
Reynolds v. Missouri, Kansas & Texas Railway Co.
green
1 sentence1929The rights of the plaintiff against the trustee in trustee process, and his rights against the main defendant, are so far distinct and severable that a decision respecting each may be treated as final for the purpose of bringing proceedings to this court without violation of the rule of Hutchins v. Nickerson, supra. Reynolds v. Missouri, Kansas & Texas Railway, 224 Mass. 253, 254 ; S. C. 224 Mass. 379 . | 1 | 1929–1929 |
Reynolds v. Missouri, Kansas & Texas Railway Co.
green
1 sentence1929The rights of the plaintiff against the trustee in trustee process, and his rights against the main defendant, are so far distinct and severable that a decision respecting each may be treated as final for the purpose of bringing proceedings to this court without violation of the rule of Hutchins v. Nickerson, supra. Reynolds v. Missouri, Kansas & Texas Railway, 224 Mass. 253, 254 ; S. C. 224 Mass. 379 . | 1 | 1929–1929 |
Keith v. Heywood Boot & Shoe Co.
green
1 sentence1927It was said by Chief Justice White in Standard Oil Co. of New Jersey v. United States, 221 U. S. 51, 54 , ... ' That by the common law monopolies were unlawful because of their restriction upon individual freedom of contract and their injury to the public.’ Without analysis of the authorities outside this Commonwealth we accept this as a complete summary of the law.” It is stated in Keith v. Heywood Boot & Shoe Co. 255 Mass. 321, 324 , that “The facts material to the case should be found to aid the court in determining whether the agreement and lease are in violation of the provisions of G. | 1 | 1927–1927 |
White v. Newborg
green
1 sentence1914White v. Newborg, 208 Mass. 279 . | 1 | 1914–1914 |
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.