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 1935–2013 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 |
|---|---|---|
In the Matter of Dugangreen2 sentences2006“A majority of the Justices, upon a summary hearing or otherwise, may remove a clerk . . . upon a complaint ‘if sufficient cause is shown therefor and it appears that the public good so requires.’ ” Matter of Dugan, 416 Mass. 461, 463 (1993), quoting G. 1994General Laws c. 211, § 4, as amended by St. 1992, c. 379, § 62, provides, in relevant part: “A majority of the justices ... if sufficient cause is shown therefor and it appears that the public good so requires, may, upon a complaint, upon a summary hearing or otherwise, remove a clerk of the superior court in Suffolk county, or of a district court, a county commissioner, a county treasurer, sheriff, register of probate or district attorney, or the recorder of the land court. “ In Matter of Dugan, 416 Mass. 461, 462 (1993), this court, after hearing the parties, ordered the clerk suspended from | 2 | 2 |
Vizcaino v. Commonwealthgreen1 sentence2013Although it is customary when imposing criminal contempt under rule 43 for the judge to give the offender a warning, notice, and a summary hearing as a single transaction on the occurrence of the contemptuous conduct, see Vizcaino v. Commonwealth, 462 Mass. 266, 272 (2012), the judge here satisfied the essential requirements of due process. | 1 | 1 |
Wightman v. Superintendent, Massachusetts Correctional Institutiongreen1 sentence1995L. c. 32, § 16],” the judge concluded that “the board was justified in ruling that the plaintiffs failed to provide a ‘fair summary of the facts’ upon which the removal was based,” and, therefore, the board did not exceed its authority by conducting a “limited de novo review.” In his decision, he noted that, while the board received a copy of the February 23, 1990, letter before the hearing, there was no submission by the “head of [Geddes’s] department” of “a summary of the hearing officer’s decision,” or “a copy of the record, if one exists, of the hearing before the hearing officer.” The jud | 1 | 1 |
Yerardi's Moody Street Restaurant & Lounge, Inc. v. Board of Selectmengreen1 sentence1995Restaurant & Lounge, Inc. v. Selectmen of Randolph, 19 Mass. App. Ct. 296, 300 (1985). | 1 | 1 |
Town of Brookline v. Medical Area Service Corp.green1 sentence1980Corp., 8 Mass. App. Ct. 243, 249-254 (1979). 9 The section provides in pertinent part: “No contract for the construction, reconstruction, alteration, remodeling, repair or demolition of any public building ... by any city . . . costing more than two thousand dollars shall be deemed to have been made until the auditor or accountant or other officer of the city . . . having similar duties has certified thereon that an appropriation in the amount of such contract is available therefor. . . . | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Massachusetts. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Nader v. Citron
green
1 sentence2000Nader v. Citron, supra. Schaer’s complaint alleges that the board did not apply the proper standard of proof; incorrect evidentiary decisions may have been made; certain evidence may have been improperly admitted; the campus atmosphere may have unfairly tainted the hearing; and the summary of the hearing did not meet the contractual requirement. | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Goldie's Salvage, Inc. v. Board of Selectmen of Walpole
green
1 sentence1998The standard of review provided by §59 has not been precisely defined. “[I]t is not altogether clear what the Legislature had in mind by providing for a summary hearing, together with ‘jurisdiction in equity to review all questions of fact or law.’ ” Goldie’s Salvage, supra at 731 . | 1 | 1998–1998 |
MASSACHUSETTS BAR ASSOCIATION v. Cronin
green
1 sentence1993A majority of the Justices, upon a summary hearing or otherwise, may remove a clerk of a District Court upon a complaint “if sufficient cause is shown therefor and it appears that the public good so requires.” This court last discussed the question of the removal of a clerk of court in Massachusetts Bar Ass’n v. Cronin, 351 Mass. 321 (1966). | 1 | 1993–1993 |
Brooks v. Fitchburg & Leominster Street Railway Co.
green
1 sentence1956Brooks v. Fitchburg & Leominster Street Railway, 200 Mass. 8, 17 . | 1 | 1956–1956 |
Shea v. Peters
green
1 sentence1935If, upon a summary hearing of the parties, it is found that the attachment is excessive or unreasonable, the justice shall reduce or dissolve the attachment or order a part of the goods or estate to be released.” In Shea v. Peters, 230 Mass. 197 , it was decided that a person not a party to the original action whose property had been attached as the property of the defendant therein can invoke the aid of this statute. | 1 | 1935–1935 |
Bullock
green
1 sentence1935The master states that the petition was “heard,” but, even apart from this recital, it is to be presumed that the proceedings were ‘regular and, consequently, that there was compliance with the requirement of the statute that there be “a summary hearing of the parties.” Bullock, petitioner, 254 Mass. 14, 17 . | 1 | 1935–1935 |
Rosen v. United States Rubber Co.
green
1 sentence1935Rosen v. United States Rubber Co. 268 Mass. 403, 406 . | 1 | 1935–1935 |
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.