case for further hearing (Massachusetts) · Go Syfert
← Massachusetts issues

case for further hearing in Massachusetts

6 Massachusetts opinions name it 2 courts 1929–2017 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.

Followed or applied (4)

CaseFollowedCited
Commonwealth v. Bresnahangreen
massappct · 2011 · cited in 1 Massachusetts opinions naming this issue, 2012–2012
1 sentence

2012See Commonwealth v. Bresnahan, 79 Mass. App. Ct. 353, 364 (2011).

11
Christiansburg Garment Co. v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commissiongreen
scotus · 1978 · cited in 1 Massachusetts opinions naming this issue, 1991–1991
1 sentence

1991As to the characterization “mentally impaired,” a reading of the judge’s findings as a whole demonstrates that he did not misinterpret the psychologist’s analysis as one suggesting mental illness. 3 Contrast, in this respect, the Schleissner case, where the plaintiff did introduce evidence of diminution in fair market value (although not of rental value particularly), and this court as matter of discretion remanded the case for further hearing on the rental value. 4 The Federal statute, in relevant part, states that “[i]n any action or proceeding to enforce a provision of [specified statutes a

11
Hughes v. Rowegreen
scotus · 1980 · cited in 1 Massachusetts opinions naming this issue, 1991–1991
1 sentence

1991As to the characterization “mentally impaired,” a reading of the judge’s findings as a whole demonstrates that he did not misinterpret the psychologist’s analysis as one suggesting mental illness. 3 Contrast, in this respect, the Schleissner case, where the plaintiff did introduce evidence of diminution in fair market value (although not of rental value particularly), and this court as matter of discretion remanded the case for further hearing on the rental value. 4 The Federal statute, in relevant part, states that “[i]n any action or proceeding to enforce a provision of [specified statutes a

11
Bourbeau v. Whittakergreen
mass · 1929 · cited in 1 Massachusetts opinions naming this issue, 1929–1929
1 sentence

1929Bourbeau v. Whittaker, 265 Mass. 396, 399, 400 .

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Massachusetts. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (8)

CaseCitedYears
Commonwealth v. Blanchette green
massappct · 2004
1 sentence

2017In addition, unlike the circumstances in Reese and Blanchette, where the judge did not apply the correct legal standard, or in Commonwealth v. Blanchette, 60 Mass. App. Ct. 924 , 925 n.5 (2004), where significant time had passed since the probable cause hearing subject to that appeal, there is no reason in the present case for further hearing on the question of probable cause.

12017–2017
Commonwealth v. Fidler green
mass · 1979
1 sentence

2012The Appeals Court vacated the order for a new trial and remanded the case for further inquiry into the bases for the defendant’s request for a postverdict inquiry of the jurors and, in particular, the role played by the defendant and his friend in contacting a juror, in apparent violation of the principles announced by this court in Commonwealth v. Fidler, 377 Mass. 192 (1979) (Fidler).

12012–2012
Schleissner v. Town of Provincetown green
massappct · 1989
1 sentence

1991See Harrison v. Textron, Inc., 367 Mass, at 555; Schleissner v. Provincetown, 27 Mass. App. Ct. at 397 . 7 The report in the Gynan case suggests that the judgment and the order under § 6F may have been reviewed on a single appeal.

11991–1991
Loza v. Panish green
calctapp · 1980
1 sentence

1981Wis. 1977) (three-judge court), where candidates of "Minority parties or principles" were placed in a column marked Independent but each candidate could identify himself on the ballot in five words or less. [23] See also Loza v. Panish, 102 Cal. App.3d 821 (1980), invalidating a provision allowing the county registrar to reject any 200 word statement by a candidate which contained objectionable words — described as "vulgar," and so forth.

11981–1981
Ihlenfeldt v. State Election Board green
wied · 1977
1 sentence

1981L.J. 727 (1980). [20] We do not face here a regulation which is intended merely to prevent confusion of party or candidate names in the trademark sense of "Passing off." See Foley v. Donovan, 274 Minn. 501 (1966); Shaw v. Johnson, 311 Minn. 237 (1976). [21] The situation had so developed that there was no occasion for remanding the case for further inquiry and findings. [a] No. 80-1656 (8th Cir. Oct. 21, 1980, Henley, J.) (digested at 49 U.S.L.W. 2325 , Nov. 18, 1980). [22] Compare Ihlenfeldt v. State Election Bd., 425 F. Supp. 1361 (E.D.

11981–1981
Shaw v. Johnson green
minn · 1976
1 sentence

1981L.J. 727 (1980). [20] We do not face here a regulation which is intended merely to prevent confusion of party or candidate names in the trademark sense of "Passing off." See Foley v. Donovan, 274 Minn. 501 (1966); Shaw v. Johnson, 311 Minn. 237 (1976). [21] The situation had so developed that there was no occasion for remanding the case for further inquiry and findings. [a] No. 80-1656 (8th Cir. Oct. 21, 1980, Henley, J.) (digested at 49 U.S.L.W. 2325 , Nov. 18, 1980). [22] Compare Ihlenfeldt v. State Election Bd., 425 F. Supp. 1361 (E.D.

11981–1981
Foley v. Donovan green
minn · 1966
1 sentence

1981L.J. 727 (1980). [20] We do not face here a regulation which is intended merely to prevent confusion of party or candidate names in the trademark sense of "Passing off." See Foley v. Donovan, 274 Minn. 501 (1966); Shaw v. Johnson, 311 Minn. 237 (1976). [21] The situation had so developed that there was no occasion for remanding the case for further inquiry and findings. [a] No. 80-1656 (8th Cir. Oct. 21, 1980, Henley, J.) (digested at 49 U.S.L.W. 2325 , Nov. 18, 1980). [22] Compare Ihlenfeldt v. State Election Bd., 425 F. Supp. 1361 (E.D.

11981–1981
Nelson's Case green
· 1914
1 sentence

1941Nelson’s Case, 217 Mass. 467, 470 .

11941–1941

Where else courts name it

IL 9 (1986–2022) MA 6 (1929–2017) CA 5 (1933–2022) PA 4 (1954–2020) MI 3 (1968–2016) NC 3 (1978–1998) IA 3 (1948–1971) OR 3 (1983–2005) MO 3 (1935–1985) OK 3 (1954–1977) TX 2 (1953–2007) TN 2 (2016–2017) MS 2 (1993–1993) ID 2 (1963–2006) OH 2 (2007–2022) KY 2 (1931–1967) MD 2 (1973–1973) GA 2 (1899–1991)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check