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.
10 Massachusetts opinions name it 2 courts 2005–2024 6 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 |
|---|---|---|
Iamele v. Asselingreen2 sentences2024As that is precisely what occurred here, we turn to the June 30, 2020 order.4 "The inquiry at an extension hearing is whether the plaintiff has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that an extension of the order is necessary to protect her from the likelihood of 'abuse.'" Iamele v. Asselin, 444 Mass. 734, 739 (2005). 2019The Supreme Judicial Court addressed the standard for granting extensions in Iamele v. Asselin , 444 Mass. 734 , 739-740 (2005), in the c. 209A context: "The inquiry at an extension hearing is whether the plaintiff has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that an extension of the order is necessary to protect her from the likelihood of 'abuse' as defined in G. | 7 | 10 |
G.B. v. C.A.green1 sentence2024"A plaintiff seeking the extension of an abuse prevention order must prove 'by a preponderance of the evidence . . . that the defendant has caused or attempted to cause physical harm, committed a sexual assault, or placed the plaintiff in reasonable fear of imminent serious physical 4 We observe that appellate counsel for the defendant was not counsel for the defendant in the District Court proceedings. 3 harm.'" G.B. v. C.A., 94 Mass. App. Ct. 389, 393 (2018), quoting MacDonald v. Caruso, 467 Mass. 382, 386 (2014). | 1 | 1 |
MacDonald v. Carusogreen1 sentence2024"A plaintiff seeking the extension of an abuse prevention order must prove 'by a preponderance of the evidence . . . that the defendant has caused or attempted to cause physical harm, committed a sexual assault, or placed the plaintiff in reasonable fear of imminent serious physical 4 We observe that appellate counsel for the defendant was not counsel for the defendant in the District Court proceedings. 3 harm.'" G.B. v. C.A., 94 Mass. App. Ct. 389, 393 (2018), quoting MacDonald v. Caruso, 467 Mass. 382, 386 (2014). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Massachusetts. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
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.