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.
8 Massachusetts opinions name it 3 courts 1988–2006 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 |
|---|---|---|
Chandler v. Dunlopgreen2 sentences2006Contrast Chandler v. Dunlop, 311 Mass. at 8 (applying the nullity doctrine where the only defendant named in the original action was dead). 2006“According to the nullity doctrine, as set forth in Chandler v. Dunlop, 311 Mass. 1, 5 (1942), a complaint brought against a deceased person is one ‘brought against nobody,’ and because such an action is void from the beginning, any subsequent amendment of the complaint does not relate back, for purposes of the statute of limitations, to the date of the initial filing.” Nutter v. Woodard, supra at 596 . | 5 | 7 |
Holmquist v. Starrgreen2 sentences2006Compare Holmquist v. Starr, 402 Mass. 92 (1988) (narrowing the applicability of the nullity doctrine). 1998While the case at hand might, therefore, present an opportunity to extend the decisions in Holmquist v. Starr, 402 Mass. 92, 95 (1988), and Nutter v. Woodward, supra, and to narrow further the nullity doctrine, 5 we need not follow that path. | 2 | 4 |
Johnson v. Carrollgreen1 sentence1988See Johnson v. Carroll, 272 Mass. 134, 137 (1930). 5 *96 The order of the Appellate Division dismissing the report is reversed and the case is remanded to the District Court for further proceedings. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Massachusetts. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Nutter v. Woodard
green
2 sentences2006“According to the nullity doctrine, as set forth in Chandler v. Dunlop, 311 Mass. 1, 5 (1942), a complaint brought against a deceased person is one ‘brought against nobody,’ and because such an action is void from the beginning, any subsequent amendment of the complaint does not relate back, for purposes of the statute of limitations, to the date of the initial filing.” Nutter v. Woodard, supra at 596 . 2000In Nutter v. Woodward, 34 Mass. App. Ct. 596 (1993), the nullity doctrine was further narrowed. | 3 | 1998–2006 |
White v. Helmuth
green
2 sentences2001“The nullity doctrine states that a complaint brought against a deceased person cannot be maintained because it is, ‘in truth, brought against nobody.’ ” White v. Helmuth, 45 Mass. App. Ct. 634 , 635 n.2 (1998), quoting from Chandler v. Dunlop, 311 Mass. 1, 5 (1942). 2000White v. Helmuth, 45 Mass. App. Ct. 634 (1998). | 2 | 2000–2001 |
Brooks v. Boston & Northern Street Railway Co.
green
1 sentence1997Ry., 211 Mass. 277 (1912). | 1 | 1997–1997 |
Bateman v. Wood
green
1 sentence1988“There was no adequate service upon the present defendant, since she was not named as defendant at the time the writs were served and was not acting for the one named as defendant” (emphasis added). *95 Bateman, supra at 486-487 . | 1 | 1988–1988 |
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.