9 Massachusetts opinions name it 3 courts 1959–2010 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 |
|---|---|---|
Murray v. Continental Insurancegreen2 sentences2010Co., 313 Mass. 557, 563 (1943) (‘The general rule . . . [is] that a plaintiff seeking to recover for breach of a duty or obligation created by a general clause of a contract, which also contains an exception descriptively limiting such duty or obligation must allege and prove that his cause of action is within the contract and outside the exception; but that where the exception is in another separate and distinct clause of the . . . contract defining . . . the duty or obligation, then the burden is upon the party relying on such exception” (brackets in original)); Hanover Ins. 1997Co., 313 Mass. 557, 563 (1943), expresses the rule as to exclusions: “The general rule governing . . . [is] that a plaintiff seeking to recover for breach of a duty or obligation created by a general clause of a contract, which also contains an exception descriptively limiting such duty or obligation, must allege and prove that his cause of action is within the contract and outside the exception; but that where the exception is in another separate and distinct clause of the . . . contract defining . . . the duty or obligation, then the burden is upon the party relying on such exception.” In th | 3 | 4 |
Highlands Insurance v. Aerovox Inc.green2 sentences2004“The general rule governing . . . [is] that a plaintiff seeking to recover for breach of a duty or obligation created by a general clause of a contract, which also contains an exception descriptively limiting such duty or obligation must allege and prove that his cause of action is within the contract and outside the exception; but that where the exception is in another separate and distinct clause of the . . . contract defining . . . the duty or obligation, then the burden is upon the party relying on such exception.” Highland Insurance Co. v. Aerovox, 424 Mass. 226, 230 (1997), quoting Murra 2002Co. v. Aerovox, Inc., 424 Mass. 226, 231 (1997) (stating “where the exception is in another separate and distinct clause of the . . . contract defining . . . the duty or obligation, then the burden is upon the party relying on such exception” (quoting Murray v. Continental Ins. | 2 | 2 |
Ansell v. City of Bostongreen2 sentences1987“The long established rule relating to the burden of proof of an exception was stated in Ansell v. Boston, 254 Mass. 208, 211 [1926], as follows:,lThe rule as to the burden of proof, applicable both to criminal and civil cases, is that, where the duty or obligation or crime is defined by statute, if there be an exception in the enacting clause, or an exception incorporated into a general clause, descriptive of the duty or obligation or crime, then the party pleading must allege and prove that his adversary is not within the exception; but if the exception is in a subsequent, separate or distin 1971The long established rule relating to the burden of proof of an exception was stated in Ansell v. Boston, 254 Mass. 208 , 211 as follows: — “The rule as to burden of proof, applicable both to criminal and civil cases, is that, where the duty or obligation or crime is defined by statute, if there be an exception in the enacting clause, or an exception incorporated into the general clause, descriptive of the duty or obligation or crime, then the party pleading must allege and prove that his adversary is not within the exception; but if the exception is in a subsequent, separate or distinct claus | 1 | 2 |
McGinnis v. Aetna Life & Casualty Co.green1 sentence2010Co. v. Talhouni, 413 Mass. 781, 785 (1992), citing McGinnis v. Aetna Life & Casualty Co., 398 Mass. 37, 38 (1986) (“The insurer must show the applicability of the clause excluding coverage for injury or damage intended or expected by the insured”). | 1 | 1 |
Hanover Insurance v. Talhounigreen1 sentence2010Co. v. Talhouni, 413 Mass. 781, 785 (1992), citing McGinnis v. Aetna Life & Casualty Co., 398 Mass. 37, 38 (1986) (“The insurer must show the applicability of the clause excluding coverage for injury or damage intended or expected by the insured”). | 1 | 1 |
Sullivan v. Wardgreen1 sentence1987“The long established rule relating to the burden of proof of an exception was stated in Ansell v. Boston, 254 Mass. 208, 211 [1926], as follows:,lThe rule as to the burden of proof, applicable both to criminal and civil cases, is that, where the duty or obligation or crime is defined by statute, if there be an exception in the enacting clause, or an exception incorporated into a general clause, descriptive of the duty or obligation or crime, then the party pleading must allege and prove that his adversary is not within the exception; but if the exception is in a subsequent, separate or distin | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Massachusetts. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Commonwealth v. Fall River Motor Sales, Inc.
green
2 sentences2008“One common reason for the denial of a continuance in this context is the irrelevance of further discovery to the issue being adjudicated in summary judgment.” Id. at 308 . 2002“One common reason for the denial of a continuance in this context is the irrelevance of further discovery to the issue being adjudicated in summary judgment.” Id. at 308 . | 2 | 2002–2008 |
Garvey v. Wesson
green
1 sentence1971The long established rule relating to the burden of proof of an exception was stated in Ansell v. Boston, 254 Mass. 208 , 211 as follows: — “The rule as to burden of proof, applicable both to criminal and civil cases, is that, where the duty or obligation or crime is defined by statute, if there be an exception in the enacting clause, or an exception incorporated into the general clause, descriptive of the duty or obligation or crime, then the party pleading must allege and prove that his adversary is not within the exception; but if the exception is in a subsequent, separate or distinct claus | 1 | 1971–1971 |
Curran v. Burkhardt
green
1 sentence1971In Curran v. Burkhardt, 310 Mass. 466 the Court said “The plaintiff in order to recover was required to show that his injuries were caused by a dog that was owned or kept by the defendant and that at the time of his injuries he was not committing a trespass or other tort nor teasing, tormenting or abusing the dog. — or in other words that his own wrongful act did not contribute to his injury.” See cases cited. | 1 | 1971–1971 |
Lubianez v. Metropolitan Life Insurance
green
1 sentence1959Co. 323 Mass. 16, 18-19 , in the following words: “The rule is well settled that, where a plaintiff seeks to enforce a right created by a general clause of a contract which also contains an exception, he must allege and prove that he is not within the exception; but where the exception is in another separate or distinct clause of the contract, then the burden of proof is on the party relying on such exception.” In the Corbett case, supra, the principle was applied to a covenant in the lease in which the exception was in the sentence imposing the obligation, with the effect of *413 placing the | 1 | 1959–1959 |
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.