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 1995–2020 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 |
|---|---|---|
Goodwin v. Lee Public Schoolsgreen2 sentences2018See Goodwin , 475 Mass. at 284 , 56 N.E.3d 777 . 2018See Goodwin , 475 Mass. at 284 , 56 N.E.3d 777 . | 1 | 1 |
Drakopoulos v. U.S. Bank National Ass'ngreen1 sentence2017Assn., 465 Mass. 775, 777 (2013). 8 The judge had denied an earlier motion for summary judgment filed by Williams because, inter alia, "the issue of intent is a question of fact in dispute." After further discovery, including Casey's deposition, the judge granted Liberty Mutual's motion, leading to the present appeal. 6 3. | 1 | 1 |
Cassesso v. Commissioner of Correctiongreen1 sentence2014This appeal by Liberty Mutual followed. ‘Where parties have filed cross-motions for summary judgment and ‘in essence there is no real dispute as to the salient facts or if only a question of law is involved,’ summary judgment shall be granted to the party ‘entitled to judgment as a matter of law.’” Carter v. Seto, 2005 Mass. App. Div. 62, 64 , quoting Cassesso v. Commissioner of Correction, 390 Mass. 419, 422 (1983). ‘We review an allowance of a summary judgment motion de novo.” University of Pa. v. Halpern, 2009 Mass. App. Div. 172, 173 . | 1 | 1 |
Meehan's Casegreen1 sentence2014See, e.g., Meehan's Case, 316 Mass. 522, 523 (1944) (under § 15, insurer "was entitled to reimburse itself for compensation paid to the employee out of any amount that it might recover" from a tortfeasor); Richard v. Arsenault, 349 Mass. 521, 524 (1965) (under § 15, "any damages awarded as a result of the third party action must first be applied to reimburse the insurer for the 7 The reasoning in Curry is also problematic in light of the Legislature's use of the word "injury" in that portion of the statute quoted above in the text. | 1 | 1 |
Richard v. Arsenaultgreen1 sentence2014See, e.g., Meehan's Case, 316 Mass. 522, 523 (1944) (under § 15, insurer "was entitled to reimburse itself for compensation paid to the employee out of any amount that it might recover" from a tortfeasor); Richard v. Arsenault, 349 Mass. 521, 524 (1965) (under § 15, "any damages awarded as a result of the third party action must first be applied to reimburse the insurer for the 7 The reasoning in Curry is also problematic in light of the Legislature's use of the word "injury" in that portion of the statute quoted above in the text. | 1 | 1 |
Hazel-Atlas Glass Co. v. Hartford-Empire Co.green1 sentence1995DISCUSSION “Fraud on the court occurs where a party tampers with the fair administration of justice by deceiving ‘the institutions set up to protect and safeguard the public’ or otherwise abusing or undermining the integrity of the judicial process.” Rockdale Management Co. v. Shawmut Bank, N.A., 418 Mass. 596, 598 (1994), citing Hazel-Atlas Glass Co. v. Hartford-Empire Co., 322 U.S. 238, 246 (1944). | 1 | 1 |
Rockdale Management Co. v. Shawmut Bank, N.A.green1 sentence1995DISCUSSION “Fraud on the court occurs where a party tampers with the fair administration of justice by deceiving ‘the institutions set up to protect and safeguard the public’ or otherwise abusing or undermining the integrity of the judicial process.” Rockdale Management Co. v. Shawmut Bank, N.A., 418 Mass. 596, 598 (1994), citing Hazel-Atlas Glass Co. v. Hartford-Empire Co., 322 U.S. 238, 246 (1944). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Massachusetts. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Chiulli v. Liberty Mutual Insurance, Inc.
green
1 sentence2020Ins., Inc., 87 Mass. App. Ct. 229 (2015). 3 reasonably clear after closing arguments in the Federal court case, that Liberty Mutual violated c. 93A from that time until six weeks later, and that Liberty Mutual's violation was not willful or knowing. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
University of Pennsylvania v. Halpern
neutral
1 sentence2014This appeal by Liberty Mutual followed. ‘Where parties have filed cross-motions for summary judgment and ‘in essence there is no real dispute as to the salient facts or if only a question of law is involved,’ summary judgment shall be granted to the party ‘entitled to judgment as a matter of law.’” Carter v. Seto, 2005 Mass. App. Div. 62, 64 , quoting Cassesso v. Commissioner of Correction, 390 Mass. 419, 422 (1983). ‘We review an allowance of a summary judgment motion de novo.” University of Pa. v. Halpern, 2009 Mass. App. Div. 172, 173 . | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Carter v. Seto
green
1 sentence2014This appeal by Liberty Mutual followed. ‘Where parties have filed cross-motions for summary judgment and ‘in essence there is no real dispute as to the salient facts or if only a question of law is involved,’ summary judgment shall be granted to the party ‘entitled to judgment as a matter of law.’” Carter v. Seto, 2005 Mass. App. Div. 62, 64 , quoting Cassesso v. Commissioner of Correction, 390 Mass. 419, 422 (1983). ‘We review an allowance of a summary judgment motion de novo.” University of Pa. v. Halpern, 2009 Mass. App. Div. 172, 173 . | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Golchin v. Liberty Mutual Insurance
green
1 sentence2013In Golchin I, 460 Mass. at 236-237 , on further appellate review, we concluded that Golchin’s complaint was sufficient to raise a right to relief, that Liberty Mutual had not demonstrated as a matter of law that Golchin may not receive MedPay benefits when she already had received medical expense benefits under her health insurance policy, and that it was error for a Superior Court judge to have allowed Liberty Mutual’s motion to dismiss Golchin’s complaint. | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Davekos v. Liberty Mutual Insurance
green
1 sentence2013NEPT also submitted, in opposition to Liberty Mutual’s motion, news articles documenting legal settlements between Ingenix and both the State of New York and the American Medical Association regarding allegations that Ingenix databases reported artificially low charges to justify low insurance payments.* * 4 After a hearing on June 18, 2009, a District Court judge denied Liberty Mutual’s motion, citing Davekos, supra. The jury-waived trial took place before the same judge on June 24, 2010. | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Marram v. Kobrick Offshore Fund, Ltd.
green
1 sentence2011Conversion of the motion into one for summary judgment may therefore have been appropriate because Liberty Mutual’s motion relies on facts and documents outside the complaint that were not excluded by the motion judge. 1 Conversion, however, is not an absolute requirement because “[wjhere ... the plaintiff had notice of [the extrinsic] documents and relied on them in framing the complaint, the attachment of such documents to a motion to dismiss does not convert the motion to one for summary judgment . . . .” Marram v. Kobrick Offshore Fund, Ltd., supra at 45 n.4. | 1 | 2011–2011 |
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.