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 4 courts 1888–2013 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 |
|---|---|---|
Charles D. Bonanno Linen Service, Inc. v. McCarthygreen2 sentences1986Bonanno Linen Serv., Inc. v. McCarthy, 550 F. Supp. 231, 246-247 (D. 1985Bonanno Linen Serv., Inc. v. McCarthy, 550 F. Supp. at 246-247 , aff’d on this issue, 708 F.2d at 12 . | 1 | 2 |
Schollmeyer v. Saxowskygreen1 sentence2013Each case must be determined upon its own facts.” Schollmeyer v. Saxowsky, 211 N.W.2d 377, 387 (N.D. 1973). | 1 | 1 |
Mirpuri v. Act Manufacturing, Inc.green1 sentence2004See Mirpuri v. ACT Manufacturing, Inc., 212 F.3d 624, 630 (1st Cir. 2000), citing Scarpa v. Murphy, 782 F.2d 300 (1st Cir. 1986) (suggesting that “good cause” under Fed.R.Civ.P. 4 and “excusable neglect” under Fed.R.Civ.P. 6 are essentially equivalent and are intended to complement each other). 2 2 The second question is whether there is a fixed rule that governs the determination of whether there has been a showing of “good cause” or “excusable neglect.” In this regard it is important to appreciate that rules 4(j) and 6(b) call for an application of equitable principles and a consideration of | 1 | 1 |
John Scarpa v. William Murphygreen1 sentence2004See Mirpuri v. ACT Manufacturing, Inc., 212 F.3d 624, 630 (1st Cir. 2000), citing Scarpa v. Murphy, 782 F.2d 300 (1st Cir. 1986) (suggesting that “good cause” under Fed.R.Civ.P. 4 and “excusable neglect” under Fed.R.Civ.P. 6 are essentially equivalent and are intended to complement each other). 2 2 The second question is whether there is a fixed rule that governs the determination of whether there has been a showing of “good cause” or “excusable neglect.” In this regard it is important to appreciate that rules 4(j) and 6(b) call for an application of equitable principles and a consideration of | 1 | 1 |
David Raymond v. International Business MacHines Corp.green1 sentence2004See Raymond v. IBM Corp., 148 F.3d 63, 66 (2d Cir. 1998), quoting Pioneer Inv. | 1 | 1 |
Russell v. Foleygreen1 sentence1974“The granting of a petition to vacate a judgment is not governed by a fixed rule but rests largely although not exclusively in the sound discretion of the court.” Russell v. Foley, 278 Mass. 145, 148 (1932). | 1 | 1 |
Folsom v. Clemencegreen1 sentence1888See also Folsom v. Clemence, 119 Mass. 473 . | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Massachusetts. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Charles D. Bonanno Linen Service, Inc. v. William J. McCarthy
green
1 sentence1985Bonanno Linen Serv., Inc. v. McCarthy, 550 F. Supp. at 246-247 , aff’d on this issue, 708 F.2d at 12 . | 1 | 1985–1985 |
Soper v. Manning
neutral
1 sentence1932Soper v. Manning, 158 Mass. 381, 384 . | 1 | 1932–1932 |
Crocker v. Cotting
green
1 sentence1904Crocker v. Cotting, 166 Mass. 183 . | 1 | 1904–1904 |
Motley v. Sargent
green
1 sentence1902Motley v. Sargent, 119 Mass. 231 . | 1 | 1902–1902 |
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.