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.
7 Massachusetts opinions name it 3 courts 1994–2025 3 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 |
|---|---|---|
GUARDIANSHIP OF INGRID (and a companion case ).green1 sentence2025It is true that rule 60(b) "contains one more possible escape valve as to the timing of the challenge to a judgment." Guardianship of Ingrid, 102 Mass. App. Ct. 1, 6 (2022). | 1 | 1 |
Maitland v. Board of Registration in Medicinegreen1 sentence2022G.L. c. 30A, § 14(1) (“Upon application made within the thirty-day period or any extension thereof, the court may for good cause shown extend the time.”); M aitland v. Board of Registration in Medicine, 448 Mass. 1006, 1007 (2007) (rescript) (decided under G.L. c. 30A, § 14); Rinaldi v. State Building Code Appeals Bd., 56 Mass. App. Ct. 668, 671 (2002) (same). | 1 | 1 |
Rinaldi v. State Building Code Appeals Boardgreen1 sentence2022G.L. c. 30A, § 14(1) (“Upon application made within the thirty-day period or any extension thereof, the court may for good cause shown extend the time.”); M aitland v. Board of Registration in Medicine, 448 Mass. 1006, 1007 (2007) (rescript) (decided under G.L. c. 30A, § 14); Rinaldi v. State Building Code Appeals Bd., 56 Mass. App. Ct. 668, 671 (2002) (same). | 1 | 1 |
BG Group, PLC v. Republic of Argentinagreen1 sentence2022See BG Group PLC, supra at 28, 35 . | 1 | 1 |
Alexander & Alexander. Inc. v. Danahygreen1 sentence2014See Alexander & Alexander, Inc. v. Danahy, 21 Mass.App.Ct. 488, 494-95 (1986) (“Unexplained delay in seeking relief for allegedly wrongful conduct may indicate an absence of irreparable harm and may make an injunction based upon that conduct inappropriate”). | 1 | 1 |
Fabre v. Waltongreen1 sentence2008See, e.g., Kalogianis v. Leone, 50 Mass.App.Ct. 910, 911 (2000), overruled on other grounds by Fabre v. Walton, 436 Mass. 517 , 522 n.7 (2002) (Superior Court did not err in denying special motion to dismiss on timeliness grounds because “judge implicitly recognized that he could have allowed the late filing,... by stating, ‘had the court addressed the merits of the motion, the court would be inclined to deny it’ ”), S.C., 441 Mass. 9 (2004); Donovan v. Gardner, 50 Mass.App.Ct. 595, 596-97, 602 (2000) (Superior Court allowed special motion to dismiss filed “three years after the plaintiffs’ co | 1 | 1 |
Fabre v. Waltongreen1 sentence2008See, e.g., Kalogianis v. Leone, 50 Mass.App.Ct. 910, 911 (2000), overruled on other grounds by Fabre v. Walton, 436 Mass. 517 , 522 n.7 (2002) (Superior Court did not err in denying special motion to dismiss on timeliness grounds because “judge implicitly recognized that he could have allowed the late filing,... by stating, ‘had the court addressed the merits of the motion, the court would be inclined to deny it’ ”), S.C., 441 Mass. 9 (2004); Donovan v. Gardner, 50 Mass.App.Ct. 595, 596-97, 602 (2000) (Superior Court allowed special motion to dismiss filed “three years after the plaintiffs’ co | 1 | 1 |
Kalogianis v. Leonered1 sentence2008See, e.g., Kalogianis v. Leone, 50 Mass.App.Ct. 910, 911 (2000), overruled on other grounds by Fabre v. Walton, 436 Mass. 517 , 522 n.7 (2002) (Superior Court did not err in denying special motion to dismiss on timeliness grounds because “judge implicitly recognized that he could have allowed the late filing,... by stating, ‘had the court addressed the merits of the motion, the court would be inclined to deny it’ ”), S.C., 441 Mass. 9 (2004); Donovan v. Gardner, 50 Mass.App.Ct. 595, 596-97, 602 (2000) (Superior Court allowed special motion to dismiss filed “three years after the plaintiffs’ co | 1 | 1 |
Donovan v. Gardnergreen1 sentence2008See, e.g., Kalogianis v. Leone, 50 Mass.App.Ct. 910, 911 (2000), overruled on other grounds by Fabre v. Walton, 436 Mass. 517 , 522 n.7 (2002) (Superior Court did not err in denying special motion to dismiss on timeliness grounds because “judge implicitly recognized that he could have allowed the late filing,... by stating, ‘had the court addressed the merits of the motion, the court would be inclined to deny it’ ”), S.C., 441 Mass. 9 (2004); Donovan v. Gardner, 50 Mass.App.Ct. 595, 596-97, 602 (2000) (Superior Court allowed special motion to dismiss filed “three years after the plaintiffs’ co | 1 | 1 |
Dow v. Bulfinchgreen1 sentence1994He declined to admit testimony about the other timing factors or percentages of possible collisions because such information could mislead the jury. “[T]he question whether evidence of experiments shall be admitted must be largely left to the discretion of the trial judge, and that discretion will not be interfered with unless in its exercise [the judge] clearly appears to be wrong.” Dow v. Bulfinch, 192 Mass. 281, 285 (1906). | 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. Letkowski
green
1 sentence2014Id. at 856-857 . | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Griffin v. General Motors Corp.
green
1 sentence1994Griffin v. General Motors Corp., 380 Mass. 362, 365 (1980). | 1 | 1994–1994 |
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.