11 Massachusetts opinions name it 3 courts 1947–2025 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 |
|---|---|---|
Glynn v. City of Gloucestergreen2 sentences1999See Glynn, 21 Mass.App.Ct. at 397-98 . 1995Nevertheless, we decided in Glynn v. Gloucester, 21 Mass. App. Ct. at 397-398 , that, even in a claim for a true breach, the contractor was required to comply with the written notice and claim provisions of the contract, which were nearly identical to the ones in the present case, before recovering above the contract price. | 1 | 2 |
School Comm. of Greenfield v. Greenfield Educ. Ass'ngreen1 sentence2025Ass'n, 385 Mass. 70, 81 (1982). [4] The plaintiff also claims that the judge erred in departing from a prior decision of the commission purportedly interpreting the written notice requirement of Par. 12(2) as a condition precedent to an appointing authority's ability to extend an employee's probationary period. | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Durlinggreen2 sentences2018See Commonwealth v. Durling , 407 Mass. 108 , 112-113, 551 N.E.2d 1193 (1990). 2018See Commonwealth v. Durling , 407 Mass. 108 , 112-113, 551 N.E.2d 1193 (1990). | 1 | 1 |
Townsend v. City of Bostongreen1 sentence2008See also, Townsend v. City of Boston, 232 Mass. 451, 452 (1919) (plaintiff was not incapacitated despite evidence that she “was treated at a hospital for five weeks, and could not sit up; that she was suffering a good deal from shock, was kept under opiates a great deal for two weeks in order to relieve pain; that she did not sleep well and was pretty uncomfortable”). 6 For all of the reasons stated herein and at the hearing on April 8, 2008, the City of Worcester’s Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED on both Counts I and II of the Complaint, and the City is DISMISSED from this action, with prejudice | 1 | 1 |
Mailloux v. Town of Littletongreen1 sentence2007L. c. 149, § 185(c)(1). 1 , 2 See Mailloux v. Littleton, 473 F. Supp. 2d 177, 184-185 (D. | 1 | 1 |
Lamont v. Postmaster Generalgreen1 sentence1996See Denver Area Educational Telecommunications Consortium, Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission, 64 U.S.L.W. 4706 , 4713 (U.S. June 25, 1996) (citing Lamont v. Postmaster General, 381 U.S. 301, 307 (1965)). | 1 | 1 |
Wightman v. Town of Methuengreen1 sentence1992See, e.g., Carifio v. Watertown, 27 Mass. App. Ct. 571, 574 (1989) (mailing notice of claim to the town clerk and a copy of the letter to the town manager, who was the executive officer, was deemed sufficient presentment); Wightman v. Methuen, 26 Mass. App. Ct. at 281 (referring to the “presentment letter”). | 1 | 1 |
Carifio v. Town of Watertowngreen1 sentence1992See, e.g., Carifio v. Watertown, 27 Mass. App. Ct. 571, 574 (1989) (mailing notice of claim to the town clerk and a copy of the letter to the town manager, who was the executive officer, was deemed sufficient presentment); Wightman v. Methuen, 26 Mass. App. Ct. at 281 (referring to the “presentment letter”). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Massachusetts. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Ram v. Town of Charlton
green
1 sentence2018Ram v. Charlton , 409 Mass. 481 , 489 (1991). | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Abramowitz v. DIRECTOR OF DIV. OF EMPLOYMENT SECURITY
green
1 sentence2001Because an employer may waive an employee’s failure to comply with a written notice requirement by accepting an oral resignation and acting upon it, Abramowitz v. Director of Employment Sec., 390 Mass. 168 , 174 (1983), the court must determine the sufficiency of the notice provided to Hope before assessing the materiality of the disputed facts. | 1 | 2001–2001 |
Everson v. General Accident, Fire & Life Assurance Corp.
green
1 sentence1947We are of opinion on all the evidence that a ruling was required as matter of law that the notice of the accident required by the conditions of the policy was not given as therein provided “as soon as practicable,” and that the plaintiff did not “immediately forward” to the defendant the written notice of the claim sent to the plaintiff by the attorney for Burns, that is, that the plaintiff did not act “with reasonable promptness.” Everson v. General Accident, Fire & Life Assurance Corp. Ltd. 202 Mass. 169, 174 . | 1 | 1947–1947 |
Sheldon v. Bennett
green
1 sentence1947Sheldon v. Bennett, 282 Mass. 240, 246 . | 1 | 1947–1947 |
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.