honest error in Massachusetts

2013Cf. Bianchi v. Retirement Bd. of Somerville, 359 Mass. 642, 650 (1971) (“The error in the present case was that of the board, and that error can readily and fairly be corrected now without prejudice to the board, [the decedent’s] estate or the widow”); Boston Retirement Bd. v. McCormick, supra at 698 (“We see nothing in the statute which prevents a member from receiving those benefits because of an honest error which can readily and fairly be corrected”).

2013Cf. Bianchi v. Retirement Bd. of Somerville, 359 Mass. 642, 650 (1971) (“The error in the present case was that of the board, and that error can readily and fairly be corrected now without prejudice to the board, [the decedent’s] estate or the widow”); Boston Retirement Bd. v. McCormick, supra at 698 (“We see nothing in the statute which prevents a member from receiving those benefits because of an honest error which can readily and fairly be corrected”).

2007Snay v. Lovely, 276 Mass. 159, 163-64 (1931) (“Courts do not sit in review of decisions thus made by such officers, even though it may appear that there has been an honest error in judgment, an innocent mistake in drawing inferences or making observations, or a failure to secure all information available by a more acute and searching investigation”); Eustace v. Dickey, 240 Mass. 55, 83 (1921) (“The discretion of those possessing the power of removal, when applied in good faith, is not subject to re-examination in respect of its wisdom.

2005Snay v. Lovely, 276 Mass. 159, 163-164 (1931).

2013Cf. Bianchi v. Retirement Bd. of Somerville, 359 Mass. 642, 650 (1971) (“The error in the present case was that of the board, and that error can readily and fairly be corrected now without prejudice to the board, [the decedent’s] estate or the widow”); Boston Retirement Bd. v. McCormick, supra at 698 (“We see nothing in the statute which prevents a member from receiving those benefits because of an honest error which can readily and fairly be corrected”).

2006We see nothing in the statute which prevents a member from receiving those benefits because of an honest error which can readily and fairly be corrected.” See id. at 698 & n.5 (identifying G.

2025Commonwealth v. Cassidy, 410 Mass. 174, 179 (1991) ("If an alternative which was neither suggested by counsel nor considered by the judge is later developed, we will not fault the judge, so long as an honest inquiry into alternatives is made").

2025See generally Blueford v. Arkansas, 566 U.S. 599 , 609–610 (2012) ("We have never required a trial court, before declaring a mistrial because of a hung jury, to consider any particular means of breaking the impasse -- let alone to consider giving the jury new options for a verdict").

2007Snay v. Lovely, 276 Mass. 159, 163-64 (1931) (“Courts do not sit in review of decisions thus made by such officers, even though it may appear that there has been an honest error in judgment, an innocent mistake in drawing inferences or making observations, or a failure to secure all information available by a more acute and searching investigation”); Eustace v. Dickey, 240 Mass. 55, 83 (1921) (“The discretion of those possessing the power of removal, when applied in good faith, is not subject to re-examination in respect of its wisdom.

2001The present case likewise involves “an honest error which can readily and fairly be corrected.” Id.; see also Dinatale v. Contributory Retirement Appeal Bd., 39 Mass.App.Ct. 401 (1995) (permitting a member to buy-back her creditable service after the date of her retirement and after she received benefits).

2001The present case likewise involves “an honest error which can readily and fairly be corrected.” Id.; see also Dinatale v. Contributory Retirement Appeal Bd., 39 Mass.App.Ct. 401 (1995) (permitting a member to buy-back her creditable service after the date of her retirement and after she received benefits).