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.
12 Massachusetts opinions name it 1 courts 1910–1977 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 |
|---|---|---|
Kennebec Framing Co. v. Pickeringgreen2 sentences1977The defendants’ principal argument rests on a statement in Lock Joint Pipe Co. v. Commonwealth, 331 Mass. 346, 350 (1954): “The import of our cases is that the sworn statement of claim must be filed within” the statutory period “after the claimant furnishes the last materials which become part of the installation.” That statement was not necessary to the decision in the Lock Joint Pipe case, but it was fully supported by the decision of a divided court in Kennebec Framing Co. v. Pickering, 142 Mass. 80, 82 (1886), a decision under our former mechanics’ lien law. 1954Kennebec Framing Co. v. Pickering, 142 Mass. 80, 82 . | 1 | 2 |
Friedman v. County of Hampdengreen2 sentences1933I find, however, that this service was not included in the claim filed on December 20, 1930.” The statute requiring security for payment for labor and materials furnished for public works is an outgrowth of the statute creating mechanics’ liens upon buildings and land of private persons (Friedman v. County of Hampden, 204 Mass. 494 ), and the provision in the statute under which the present case arises, for filing a sworn statement of claim within a certain number of days “after the claimant ceases to perform labor or furnish labor or materials” follows almost exactly the provision of the mech 1910Friedman v. County of Hampden, 204 Mass. 494, 506,507 . | 1 | 2 |
Lock Joint Pipe Co. v. Commonwealthgreen1 sentence1977The defendants’ principal argument rests on a statement in Lock Joint Pipe Co. v. Commonwealth, 331 Mass. 346, 350 (1954): “The import of our cases is that the sworn statement of claim must be filed within” the statutory period “after the claimant furnishes the last materials which become part of the installation.” That statement was not necessary to the decision in the Lock Joint Pipe case, but it was fully supported by the decision of a divided court in Kennebec Framing Co. v. Pickering, 142 Mass. 80, 82 (1886), a decision under our former mechanics’ lien law. | 1 | 1 |
Tower v. Millergreen1 sentence1955See Tower v. Miller, 211 Mass. 113, 114 . | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Massachusetts. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
A. Belanger & Sons, Inc. v. Joseph M. Concannon Corp.
green
1 sentence1973Concannon Corp. 333 Mass. 22, 25 , we construed a statute relating to housing authorities which incorporated the filing statute “so that the filing of the sworn statement of claim with the officers and agents of the corporate entity with which the contract was made was sufficient compliance.” We have also held that where an employee of the Pen- tucket Regional School District signed a registered mail receipt for a letter containing the plaintiffs’ statement of claim and Pentucket’s superintendent of schools acknowledged receipt of the letter, “the master was warranted in concluding that the no | 1 | 1973–1973 |
Regan v. Tierney
green
1 sentence1966Regan v. Tierney, 306 Mass. 168, 170 . | 1 | 1966–1966 |
Socony-Vacuum Oil Co. v. City of Lynn
green
1 sentence1954Socony-Vacuum Oil Co. Inc. v. Lynn, 306 Mass. 165, 167-168 . | 1 | 1954–1954 |
Johnson-Foster Co. v. D'Amore Construction Co.
green
1 sentence1953Johnson-Foster Co. v. D’Amore Construction Co. 314 Mass. 416 . | 1 | 1953–1953 |
General Fire Extinguisher Co. v. Chaplin
green
1 sentence1947General Fire Extinguisher Co. v. Chaplin, 183 Mass. 375 . | 1 | 1947–1947 |
A. L. Smith Iron Works v. Maryland Casualty Co.
green
1 sentence1941Smith Iron Works v. Maryland Casualty Co. 275 Mass. 74, 76 ; Knowlton v. Swampscott, 280 Mass. 69, 71 , nor could it establish any claim under § 29 because of its failure to comply with that section as to filing a sworn statement of claim and filing its petition in court. | 1 | 1941–1941 |
Knowlton v. Town of Swampscott
green
1 sentence1941Smith Iron Works v. Maryland Casualty Co. 275 Mass. 74, 76 ; Knowlton v. Swampscott, 280 Mass. 69, 71 , nor could it establish any claim under § 29 because of its failure to comply with that section as to filing a sworn statement of claim and filing its petition in court. | 1 | 1941–1941 |
Nash v. Commonwealth
green
1 sentence1916Nash v. Commonwealth, 174 Mass. 335 . | 1 | 1916–1916 |
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.