12 Massachusetts opinions name it 4 courts 1934–2016 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 |
|---|---|---|
Liquid Transporters, Inc. v. Travelers Insurance Companygreen2 sentences1985Co., 308 F.2d 809, 810 (6th Cir. 1962). 1984Ibid. | 1 | 2 |
Morea v. Cosco, Inc.green1 sentence2016See Morea v. Cosco, Inc., 422 Mass. 601, 603-604 (1996) (no evidence of settlement is admissible to prove liability or the amount of a claim). | 1 | 1 |
Tewksbury v. Fellsway Laundry, Inc.green1 sentence2010Though not cited by the parties, we are mindful of the rule in Tewksbury v. Fellsway Laundry, Inc., 319 Mass. 386, 389 (1946), and Joseph v. Tata, 339 Mass. 600, 603 (1959): a bargained for written release, executed as part of a settlement of a claim for personal injuries, cannot be avoided on grounds of mistake even if the parties had misapprehended the unknown consequences (stemming from the injury) that arose after the release was signed. | 1 | 1 |
Bobick v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co.green1 sentence2008Bobick v. United States Fidelity and Guaranty, 439 Mass. 652, 659-60 (2003); Lazaris v. Metro. | 1 | 1 |
Tomlinson v. Flanagangreen1 sentence2005Tomlinson v. Flanagan, 287 Mass. 38, 44-45 (1934) and cases cited. | 1 | 1 |
Home Indemnity Insurance v. Merchants Distributors, Inc.green2 sentences1985The Appeals Court majority agree, concluding that the result is indicated by “the well-settled judicial construction of the language of the settlement clause.” 19 Mass. App. Ct. at 25 . 1985Indeed, as the Appeals Court dissent notes ( 19 Mass. App. Ct. at 26 ), the settlement clause only applies to “the insurance afforded by . . . this policy.” See Liquid Transporters, Inc. v. Travelers Ins. | 1 | 1 |
Precious v. O'Rourkegreen1 sentence1983See, e.g., Precious v. O’Rourke, 270 Mass. 305, 307-308 (1930). | 1 | 1 |
City of Brockton v. Inhabitants of Uxbridgegreen1 sentence1946See Brockton v. Uxbridge, 138 Mass. 292, 296 . | 1 | 1 |
Costello v. Inhabitants of North Easton Village Districtgreen1 sentence1937So, also, in the case of Costello v. North Easton Village District, 205 Mass. 54, at 58, 59 , the District having exhausted its appropriation for the pay of watchmen, a meeting was called at which it was voted to employ the plaintiff “for the ensuing year, salary $600. ” There was no formal appropriation of that amount. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Massachusetts. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Joseph v. Tata
green
1 sentence2010Though not cited by the parties, we are mindful of the rule in Tewksbury v. Fellsway Laundry, Inc., 319 Mass. 386, 389 (1946), and Joseph v. Tata, 339 Mass. 600, 603 (1959): a bargained for written release, executed as part of a settlement of a claim for personal injuries, cannot be avoided on grounds of mistake even if the parties had misapprehended the unknown consequences (stemming from the injury) that arose after the release was signed. | 1 | 2010–2010 |
Koutoudakis v. Great American Indemnity Co.
green
1 sentence1958He would hold whatever finally might be recovered in a trust capacity for the sole benefit of the beneficiary named in the statute.” In Koutoudakis v. Great American Indemnity Co. 285 Mass. 466 , which concerned the proceeds of a settlement of a claim under G. | 1 | 1958–1958 |
Kingman v. Soule
green
1 sentence1934Kingman v. Soule, 132 Mass. 285, 288 . | 1 | 1934–1934 |
South & Central American Commercial Co. v. Panama Railroad
green
1 sentence1934The decision in South & Central American Commercial Co. Inc. v. Panama Railroad, 237 N. Y. 287, cannot be considered as an authority in favor of the plaintiff in the case before us where the period of limitation for the bringing of the action was within four months after the giving of the written notice provided for in clause 15 of the bill of lading, and no valid reason is shown for a delay of about eighteen months after the plaintiff had given notice to the defendant. | 1 | 1934–1934 |
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.