11 Massachusetts opinions name it 3 courts 1936–2023 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 |
|---|---|---|
Hobbs v. TLT Construction Corp.green2 sentences2013Corp., 78 Mass. App. Ct. 178, 180 (2010). 2012Corp., 78 Mass. App. Ct. 178, 180 (2010). | 2 | 2 |
Commonwealth v. Douzanisgreen1 sentence2023See Commonwealth v. Douzanis, 384 Mass. 434 , 436 n.5 (1981). 6 Defense counsel filed a supporting affidavit explaining how he had spoken to the Commonwealth "numerous times" following the single justice's order, that the Commonwealth had informed him that "they would not comply with [the discovery] order," that he was "informed that the Boston Police Department would not provide this information to the Suffolk County District Attorney's Office," and that the "Commonwealth made the same representations at a status hearing on April 5, 2022." A transcript of this April 5, 2022 hearing is not in | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. DeBellagreen1 sentence2009See id. at 690-691 . | 1 | 1 |
Bartsch v. Bartschgreen1 sentence2008Bartsch v. Bartsch, 636 N.W.2d 3, 7 (Iowa 2001), quoting Williams v. North Carolina, 317 U.S. at 298-299 . | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Dodgegreen1 sentence2006We went on to explain: “If the Superior Court RAJ determines [as of the time of the status hearing] that, despite good faith efforts of CPCS and any efforts by others to secure representation for any such defendant, there is still no counsel willing and available to represent a defendant, then the Superior Court RAJ must order the following: (1) with respect to any defendant who has been held in lieu of bail or pursuant to an order of preventive detention for more than seven days, the Superior Court RAJ shall order that the defendant be released on personal recognizance and may, in view of the | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Shumangreen1 sentence1997The status of that defense in this Commonwealth is unclear, see Commonwealth v. Shuman, 391 Mass. 345, 353-355 (1984), but, Federal appellate authorities are in agreement that the question is one for the judge, not the jury, to decide. | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Donald J. Quinngreen1 sentence1997United States v. Quinn, 543 F.2d 640, 648 (8th Cir. 1976). | 1 | 1 |
National Ass'n of Government Employees, Inc. v. Central Broadcasting Corp.green2 sentences1980As to the status of the defense of “fair comment” under the Restatement (Second) of Torts (1977), see National Ass’n of Gov’t Employees v. Central Broadcasting Corp., 379 Mass. 220 , 227 n.8 (1979). 2 As we said in National Ass'n of Gov’t Employees v. Central Broadcasting Corp., 379 Mass. 220, 228 (1979): “If there should be any doubt about the sweep of the reasoning [just set out] as applied to what may be termed private libels, there can ... be none in cases like the present.” See Bucher v. Roberts, 179 Colo. 1 (1979) (applying fact/opinion distinction in private libel). 3 The characterizati 1980As to the status of the defense of “fair comment” under the Restatement (Second) of Torts (1977), see National Ass’n of Gov’t Employees v. Central Broadcasting Corp., 379 Mass. 220 , 227 n.8 (1979). 2 As we said in National Ass'n of Gov’t Employees v. Central Broadcasting Corp., 379 Mass. 220, 228 (1979): “If there should be any doubt about the sweep of the reasoning [just set out] as applied to what may be termed private libels, there can ... be none in cases like the present.” See Bucher v. Roberts, 179 Colo. 1 (1979) (applying fact/opinion distinction in private libel). 3 The characterizati | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Massachusetts. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Lavallee v. Justices in the Hampden Superior Court
green
2 sentences2020Although Lavallee created a presumptive seven-day limit on an indigent defendant's pretrial detention without counsel, id. at 246 , it authorized release of an unrepresented defendant from pretrial detention only as a last resort if, at a status hearing before the regional administrative justice (RAJ) of the Superior Court, the defendant was still unrepresented and the RAJ determined 4 We acknowledge the amicus brief submitted by the Massachusetts Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers. 4 that, despite the good faith efforts of the Committee for Public Counsel Services (CPCS), there was still 2020Although Lavallee created a presumptive seven-day limit on an indigent defendant's pretrial detention without counsel, id. at 246 , it authorized release of an unrepresented defendant from pretrial detention only as a last resort if, at a status hearing before the regional administrative justice (RAJ) of the Superior Court, the defendant was still unrepresented and the RAJ determined 4 We acknowledge the amicus brief submitted by the Massachusetts Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers. 4 that, despite the good faith efforts of the Committee for Public Counsel Services (CPCS), there was still | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Commonwealth v. WASHINGTON W.
green
1 sentence2012At a status hearing on July 8, 2010, the juvenile filed a renewed motion for the statistical discovery addressed by this court in Commonwealth v. Washington W., supra. The prosecutor represented that the required discovery would be produced at the next scheduled court date. | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Williams v. North Carolina
green
1 sentence2008Bartsch v. Bartsch, 636 N.W.2d 3, 7 (Iowa 2001), quoting Williams v. North Carolina, 317 U.S. at 298-299 . | 1 | 2008–2008 |
People v. Dago
green
1 sentence1980As to the status of the defense of “fair comment” under the Restatement (Second) of Torts (1977), see National Ass’n of Gov’t Employees v. Central Broadcasting Corp., 379 Mass. 220 , 227 n.8 (1979). 2 As we said in National Ass'n of Gov’t Employees v. Central Broadcasting Corp., 379 Mass. 220, 228 (1979): “If there should be any doubt about the sweep of the reasoning [just set out] as applied to what may be termed private libels, there can ... be none in cases like the present.” See Bucher v. Roberts, 179 Colo. 1 (1979) (applying fact/opinion distinction in private libel). 3 The characterizati | 1 | 1980–1980 |
Ross v. Ross
green
1 sentence1936Subject to this limitation, upon the death of any man, the status of those who claim succession or inheritance in his estate is to be ascertained by the law under which that status was acquired; his personal property is indeed to be distributed according to the law of his domicil at the time of his death, and his real estate descends according to the law of the place in which it is situated; but, in either case, it is according to those provisions of that law which regulate the succession or the inheritance of persons having such a status.” Ross v. Ross, 129 Mass. 243, 246 . | 1 | 1936–1936 |
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.