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.
6 Massachusetts opinions name it 3 courts 1969–2016 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 |
|---|---|---|
Sutherland v. Aolean Development Corp.green2 sentences2016Corp., 399 Mass. 36, 41 (1987). 2001In Sutherland v. Aolian Development Corp., 399 Mass. 36 (1987), the Supreme Judicial Court explained that the process of determining whether to approve a motion for a lis pendens does not call for a judicial determination of the merits of the underlying action, and, in particular, for an inquiry into whether a motion under Mass.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) to dismiss the action for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted would be granted. | 1 | 2 |
McMann v. McGowangreen1 sentence2015General Laws c. 184, § 15(b) further provides, “[a]ny parly seeking a memorandum of lis pendens under this section shall commence the underlying proceeding by means of a verified complaint... to include a certification by the claimant made under the penalties of perjury . . . that no material facts have been omitted therefrom.” “A party’s failure to include all material facts may result in the dismissal of that parly’s claims where the omitted facts establish that those claims are devoid of reasonable factual support or arguable basis in law." McCann v. McGowan, 71 Mass.App.Ct. 513, 519-20 (20 | 1 | 1 |
Sheriff of Plymouth County v. Plymouth County Personnel Boardgreen1 sentence2010Sheriff of Plymouth County v. Plymouth County Personnel Bd., 440 Mass. 708, 710 (2004) (personnel board’s failure to provide written reasoning for its determination did not constitute a reviewable error of law). | 1 | 1 |
Pavlik v. Dmytryckgreen1 sentence1992In Pavlik v. Dmytryck, 6 Mass. App. Ct. 915, 916 (1978), we assumed, on facts similar to those here, that the judge exceeded his authority in ordering the transfer of the husband’s property to the wife, and we held that the judgment was nevertheless binding on the parties and those in privity with them, but we indicated that the judgment was not binding on a “stranger” to the litigation whose interests were affected by the proceedings. | 1 | 1 |
Miranda v. Arizonagreen1 sentence1969"Independent of any other constitutional proscription, this action constitutes a violation of the Sixth Amendment right to the assistance of counsel and excludes any statement obtained in its wake.” Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U. S. 436, 465-466, n. 35 . | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Massachusetts. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
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.