8 Massachusetts opinions name it 4 courts 2002–2024 1 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 |
|---|---|---|
Marram v. Kobrick Offshore Fund, Ltd.green2 sentences2024The existence of unfair or deceptive acts under G.L. c. 93A "must be determined from the circumstances of each claim." Markam v. Kubrick Offshore Fund, Ltd.• 442 Mass. 43 . 61 (2004). 2008L. c. 93A claim, the existence of unfair or deceptive acts ordinarily must be determined from the circumstances of each claim.” Marram v. Kobrick Offshore Fund, Ltd., 442 Mass. 43, 61 (2004). | 2 | 3 |
Spence v. Boston Edison Co.green2 sentences2005Spence v. Boston Edison Co., 390 Mass. 604, 615 (1983). [A] negligent misrepresentation may be so extreme or egregious as to constitute a violation of G.L.c. 93A, §11.” Marram v. Kobrick Offshore Fund, Ltd., 442 Mass. 43, 62 (2004), citing Golber v. BayBank Valley Trust Co., 46 Mass.App.Ct. 256, 261 (1999), quoting Glickman v. Brown, 21 Mass.App.Ct. 229, 235 (1985) (“negligent misrepresentation of fact the truth of which is reasonably capable of ascertainment is an unfair and deceptive act or practice under G.L.c. 93A, §2[a]”). 2004Spence v. Boston Edison Co., 390 Mass. 604 , 615- 616 (1983). | 1 | 2 |
Giuffrida v. High Country Investor, Inc.green1 sentence2009Giuffrida v. High Country Investor, Inc., 73 Mass. App. Ct. 225, 238 (2008). | 1 | 1 |
Martin v. Commonwealthgreen2 sentences2006This test “seeks to strike an appropriate balance between precision and lack of obscurity so as to satisfy the purposes behind the presentment provision: affording the executive officer the opportunity to investigate the circumstances of each claim, settle, and take preventative measures.” Martin, 53 Mass.App.Ct. at 529 (citation omitted). “(T]he presentment requirement is not intended to demand such rigid particularization as to reincarnate sovereign immunity and bar legitimate claims for failing to invoke perfectly the correct ‘Open Sesame.’ ” Id. at 530 (citations omitted). 2006This test “seeks to strike an appropriate balance between precision and lack of obscurity so as to satisfy the purposes behind the presentment provision: affording the executive officer the opportunity to investigate the circumstances of each claim, settle, and take preventative measures.” Martin, 53 Mass.App.Ct. at 529 (citation omitted). “(T]he presentment requirement is not intended to demand such rigid particularization as to reincarnate sovereign immunity and bar legitimate claims for failing to invoke perfectly the correct ‘Open Sesame.’ ” Id. at 530 (citations omitted). | 1 | 1 |
Glickman v. Browngreen1 sentence2005Spence v. Boston Edison Co., 390 Mass. 604, 615 (1983). [A] negligent misrepresentation may be so extreme or egregious as to constitute a violation of G.L.c. 93A, §11.” Marram v. Kobrick Offshore Fund, Ltd., 442 Mass. 43, 62 (2004), citing Golber v. BayBank Valley Trust Co., 46 Mass.App.Ct. 256, 261 (1999), quoting Glickman v. Brown, 21 Mass.App.Ct. 229, 235 (1985) (“negligent misrepresentation of fact the truth of which is reasonably capable of ascertainment is an unfair and deceptive act or practice under G.L.c. 93A, §2[a]”). | 1 | 1 |
Golber v. BayBank Valley Trust Co.green1 sentence2005Spence v. Boston Edison Co., 390 Mass. 604, 615 (1983). [A] negligent misrepresentation may be so extreme or egregious as to constitute a violation of G.L.c. 93A, §11.” Marram v. Kobrick Offshore Fund, Ltd., 442 Mass. 43, 62 (2004), citing Golber v. BayBank Valley Trust Co., 46 Mass.App.Ct. 256, 261 (1999), quoting Glickman v. Brown, 21 Mass.App.Ct. 229, 235 (1985) (“negligent misrepresentation of fact the truth of which is reasonably capable of ascertainment is an unfair and deceptive act or practice under G.L.c. 93A, §2[a]”). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Massachusetts. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
McAllister v. Boston Housing Authority
green
2 sentences2015Auth., 429 Mass. 300 , 305 n.7 (1999), overruled on other grounds by Sheehan v. Weaver, 467 Mass. 734 (2014) (where presentment letter only explicitly raised one of plaintiff’s theories of liability, presentment requirement was satisfied with respect to all theories because “executive officer had the opportunity to investigate the circumstances of each claim, as all theories of liability argued by the plaintiff were based on the same facts”). 2002Authy., 429 Mass. 300 , 305 n.7 (1999). | 2 | 2002–2015 |
Sheehan v. Weaver
green
1 sentence2015Auth., 429 Mass. 300 , 305 n.7 (1999), overruled on other grounds by Sheehan v. Weaver, 467 Mass. 734 (2014) (where presentment letter only explicitly raised one of plaintiff’s theories of liability, presentment requirement was satisfied with respect to all theories because “executive officer had the opportunity to investigate the circumstances of each claim, as all theories of liability argued by the plaintiff were based on the same facts”). | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Gilmore v. Commonwealth
green
1 sentence2002Id. at 721-722 . | 1 | 2002–2002 |
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.