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.
9 Massachusetts opinions name it 3 courts 1973–2018 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 |
|---|---|---|
Carney v. Attorney Generalgreen2 sentences2018See Gray, 474 Mass. at 644-645 , quoting Carney, 447 Mass. at 226, 230-231 . 2018See Gray , 474 Mass. at 644 -645 , 52 N.E.3d 1065 , quoting Carney , 447 Mass. at 226 , 230-231 , 850 N.E.2d 521 . | 1 | 1 |
Gray v. Attorney Generalgreen2 sentences2018See Gray , 474 Mass. at 644 -645 , 52 N.E.3d 1065 , quoting Carney , 447 Mass. at 226 , 230-231 , 850 N.E.2d 521 . 2018See Gray , 474 Mass. at 644 -645 , 52 N.E.3d 1065 , quoting Carney , 447 Mass. at 226 , 230-231 , 850 N.E.2d 521 . | 1 | 1 |
Cinerama, Inc. v. Technicolor, Inc.green2 sentences2012Rather, the transaction itself must be objectively fair, independent of the board’s beliefs.” Reis at 459 (emphasis in original), quoting Wait Disney, 906 A.2d at 52 ; Cinerama, Inc. v. Technicolor, Inc., 663 A.2d 1156, 1163 (Del. 1995); and Gesoff v. IIC Indus., Inc., 902 A.2d 1130, 1145 (Del.Ch. 2006). “[I]f actual self-interest is present and affects a majority of directors approving a transaction, the entire fairness standard applies.” Cinerama, Inc. v. Technicolor, Inc., 663 A.2d 1156, 1168 (Del. 1995). 2012Rather, the transaction itself must be objectively fair, independent of the board’s beliefs.” Reis at 459 (emphasis in original), quoting Wait Disney, 906 A.2d at 52 ; Cinerama, Inc. v. Technicolor, Inc., 663 A.2d 1156, 1163 (Del. 1995); and Gesoff v. IIC Indus., Inc., 902 A.2d 1130, 1145 (Del.Ch. 2006). “[I]f actual self-interest is present and affects a majority of directors approving a transaction, the entire fairness standard applies.” Cinerama, Inc. v. Technicolor, Inc., 663 A.2d 1156, 1168 (Del. 1995). | 1 | 1 |
Gesoff v. IIC Industries, Inc.green1 sentence2012Rather, the transaction itself must be objectively fair, independent of the board’s beliefs.” Reis at 459 (emphasis in original), quoting Wait Disney, 906 A.2d at 52 ; Cinerama, Inc. v. Technicolor, Inc., 663 A.2d 1156, 1163 (Del. 1995); and Gesoff v. IIC Indus., Inc., 902 A.2d 1130, 1145 (Del.Ch. 2006). “[I]f actual self-interest is present and affects a majority of directors approving a transaction, the entire fairness standard applies.” Cinerama, Inc. v. Technicolor, Inc., 663 A.2d 1156, 1168 (Del. 1995). | 1 | 1 |
Schaer v. Brandeis Universitygreen1 sentence2010Schaer v. Brandeis Univ., 432 Mass. 474, 481 (2000). | 1 | 1 |
Saporita v. Litnergreen1 sentence2009To the extent that Massachusetts law may require a fairness analysis under International Shoe, cf. Saporita v. Litner, 371 Mass. 607, 617-18 (1976), the Court addresses the issue below. | 1 | 1 |
Emerald Partners v. Berlingreen1 sentence2006Cf. Emerald Partners v. Berlin, 787 A.2d 85, 92 (Del. 2001) (“if the shareholder complaint alleges only a duty of care violation, the entry of a monetary judgment following a finding of unfairness would be uncol-lectible [and] a trial pursuant to the entire fairness standard of review [to prove that the challenged transaction was entirely fair to the shareholder plaintiff] would serve no useful purpose”). | 1 | 1 |
MUNICIPAL LIGHT CO, ASHBURNHAM v. Commonwealthgreen1 sentence2004See, e.g., Municipal Light Co. v. Commonwealth, 34 Mass. App. Ct. 162, 166 (1993). | 1 | 1 |
Dalis v. Buyer Advertising, Inc.green2 sentences2002See Dalis, supra, 418 Mass. at 225 . 1 It was for these reasons that the court entered its August 16, 2002, order denying the motions for summary judgment by Arnica Insurance Co. and Thomas A. Whooters. 2002See Dalis, supra, 418 Mass. at 225 . 1 It was for these reasons that the court entered its August 16, 2002, order denying the motions for summary judgment by Arnica Insurance Co. and Thomas A. Whooters. | 1 | 1 |
Whitehall Co. v. Barlettagreen1 sentence1993Whitehall Co., Ltd. v. Barletta, 404 Mass. 497, 500-03 (1989). | 1 | 1 |
Parklane Hosiery Co. v. Shoregreen1 sentence1993Massachusetts courts have stated that mutuality of parties is not always required and has allowed collateral estoppel to be applied offensively where the fairness standard set forth in Parklane Hosiery v. Shore, 439 U.S. 322, 330-31 (1979), is met. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Massachusetts. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Morgan v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co.
green
1 sentence1973National Assn. of Broadcasters v. Federal Communications Commn. 396 U. S. 842 . 2 However, in a more closely analogous situation, the Supreme Court of the United States recently held that persons wishing to broadcast responsive, paid editorial comments on a controversial issue had no con stitutional right to insist that a broadcaster permit them to express their views, leaving to the fairness doctrine any obligation on the broadcast media to permit responsive comment on controversial issues of public importance. | 1 | 1973–1973 |
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.