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 3 courts 1869–2024 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 |
|---|---|---|
United States v. Wiltbergergreen2 sentences1991It is the Legislature, not the Court, which is to define a crime, and ordain its punishment.” United States v. Wiltberger, 18 U.S. (5 Wheat.) 76, 95 (1820). 1991It is the Legislature, not *659 the Court, which is to define a crime, and ordain its punishment." United States v. Wiltberger, 18 U.S. (5 Wheat.) 76, 95 (1820). | 2 | 2 |
Smith v. K-Mart Corporationgreen1 sentence2014Even if the plaintiff had raised the issue, there is an important distinction between a "waiver" and a "forfeiture." See Smith v. Kmart Corp., 177 F.3d 19, 25 (1st Cir. 1999) (explaining that by the "overwhelming weight of . . . authority," appellate courts are authorized to apply the plain error doctrine to remedy the consequences of egregious errors made in a closing argument though not properly preserved); Cadorna v. City and County of Denver, 245 F.R.D. 490, 495 (D. | 1 | 1 |
Cadorna v. City of Denvergreen2 sentences2014Even if the plaintiff had raised the issue, there is an important distinction between a "waiver" and a "forfeiture." See Smith v. Kmart Corp., 177 F.3d 19, 25 (1st Cir. 1999) (explaining that by the "overwhelming weight of . . . authority," appellate courts are authorized to apply the plain error doctrine to remedy the consequences of egregious errors made in a closing argument though not properly preserved); Cadorna v. City and County of Denver, 245 F.R.D. 490, 495 (D. 2014Even if the plaintiff had raised the issue, there is an important distinction between a “waiver” and a “forfeiture.” See Smith v. Kmart Corp., Ill E3d 19, 25 (1st Cir. 1999) (explaining that by the “overwhelming weight of . . . authority,” appellate courts are authorized to apply the plain error doctrine to remedy the consequences of egregious errors made in a closing argument though not properly preserved); Cadorna v. City & County of Denver, 245 F.R.D. 490, 495 (D. | 1 | 1 |
Peterson v. Hopsongreen1 sentence2006Barbosa v. Hopper Feeds, Inc., 404 Mass. 610, 622 (1989); Peterson v. Hobson, 306 Mass. 597, 600 (1940); Honrahan v. City of Boston, 53 Mass.App.Ct. 1114 (2002); and Clamp-All Corporation v. Foresta, 53 Mass.App.Ct. 795, 810 (2002). 2. | 1 | 1 |
Clamp-All Corp. v. Forestagreen1 sentence2006Barbosa v. Hopper Feeds, Inc., 404 Mass. 610, 622 (1989); Peterson v. Hobson, 306 Mass. 597, 600 (1940); Honrahan v. City of Boston, 53 Mass.App.Ct. 1114 (2002); and Clamp-All Corporation v. Foresta, 53 Mass.App.Ct. 795, 810 (2002). 2. | 1 | 1 |
Barbosa v. HOPPER FEEDS. INC.green1 sentence2006Barbosa v. Hopper Feeds, Inc., 404 Mass. 610, 622 (1989); Peterson v. Hobson, 306 Mass. 597, 600 (1940); Honrahan v. City of Boston, 53 Mass.App.Ct. 1114 (2002); and Clamp-All Corporation v. Foresta, 53 Mass.App.Ct. 795, 810 (2002). 2. | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Greniergreen1 sentence1993See note 11 below. [3] For example, Darcy's statement, twice made, that he would stab him if the plaintiff hit him. [4] In Commonwealth v. Grenier, 415 Mass. 680 , 686 n. 8 (1993), we accepted, under the cognate criminal procedure rule, an objection registered at a charge conference at which the judge told counsel that appellate rights were preserved. [5] That court might treat the issue, however, under a narrow plain error exception to rule 51. | 1 | 1 |
William B. Smith v. Massachusetts Institute of Technologygreen2 sentences1993See Smith v. Massachusetts Inst. of Technology, 877 F.2d 1106, 1110 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 965 (1989). 1993See Smith v. Massachusetts Inst. of Technology, 877 F.2d 1106, 1110 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 965 (1989). [6] The issue is close. | 1 | 1 |
Smith v. Massachusetts Institute of Technologygreen2 sentences1993See Smith v. Massachusetts Inst. of Technology, 877 F.2d 1106, 1110 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 965 (1989). 1993See Smith v. Massachusetts Inst. of Technology, 877 F.2d 1106, 1110 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 965 (1989). [6] The issue is close. | 1 | 1 |
Carzis v. Hasseygreen1 sentence1985That error would be the result of misunderstanding or forgetting the very plain instruction given to them.” See also Carzis v. Hassey, 6 Mass. App. Ct. 13, 14-16 (1978). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Massachusetts. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Rotkiewicz v. Sadowsky
green
1 sentence2024The Johnsons have identified numerous objectionable passages in the Lyonses' closing argument, but they have done little to explain, and have cited no cases to establish, that the resulting prejudice rises to the high level necessary to show "a manifest miscarriage of justice" (citation omitted), Michnik-Zilberman, 14 Mass. App. Ct. at 537 , or a "manifest injustice." Rotkiewicz v. Sadowsky, 431 Mass. 748 , 752 n.3 (2000). | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Michnik-Zilberman v. Gordon's Liquor, Inc.
green
1 sentence2024The Johnsons have identified numerous objectionable passages in the Lyonses' closing argument, but they have done little to explain, and have cited no cases to establish, that the resulting prejudice rises to the high level necessary to show "a manifest miscarriage of justice" (citation omitted), Michnik-Zilberman, 14 Mass. App. Ct. at 537 , or a "manifest injustice." Rotkiewicz v. Sadowsky, 431 Mass. 748 , 752 n.3 (2000). | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Hormel v. Helvering
green
1 sentence2024The Supreme Judicial Court has emphasized that courts may reach unpreserved claims in "exceptional cases." Albert, 388 Mass. at 494 , quoting Hormel v. Helvering, 312 U.S. 552 , 557 16 Although the Johnsons have not cited it, we note one Massachusetts decision discussing the plain error doctrine in this context. | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Albert v. Municipal Court of the City of Boston
green
1 sentence2024The Supreme Judicial Court has emphasized that courts may reach unpreserved claims in "exceptional cases." Albert, 388 Mass. at 494 , quoting Hormel v. Helvering, 312 U.S. 552 , 557 16 Although the Johnsons have not cited it, we note one Massachusetts decision discussing the plain error doctrine in this context. | 1 | 2024–2024 |
United States v. Apple Macpro Computer Apple Ma
green
1 sentence2019Apple MacPro Computer , 851 F.3d at 248 n.7. | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Clements v. Treasurer of Cambridge
green
1 sentence1950Whatever may have been the case under the amended § 20 of the revised charter, said § 33A, as above amended, now provides that the latter statute shall govern “Notwithstanding any contrary provision of any city charter.” Clements v. Treasurer of Cambridge, 324 Mass. 73 . | 1 | 1950–1950 |
Minot v. Paine
green
1 sentence1869The case of Minot v. Paine, 99 Mass. 101 , states a plain rule for the guidance of trustees in respect to dividends made in the usual manner. | 1 | 1869–1869 |
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.