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 2 courts 1975–2023 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 |
|---|---|---|
Irwin v. Commonwealthgreen2 sentences2016However, the eligibility requirement does mean that the conviction was reversed "upon facts and circumstances probative of the proposition that the claimant did not commit the crime." Guzman I, supra. Summary judgment is appropriate only where no material facts are in dispute. 2016However, the eligibility requirement does mean that the conviction was reversed “upon facts and circumstances probative of the proposition that the claimant did not commit the crime.” Guzman I, supra. Summary judgment is appropriate only where no material facts are in dispute. | 1 | 3 |
City of Worcester v. College Hill Properties, LLCgreen1 sentence2023"In interpreting the meaning of a statute, we look first to the plain statutory language." Worcester v. College Hill Props., LLC, 465 Mass. 134, 138 (2013). | 1 | 1 |
Guzman v. Commonwealthgreen2 sentences2016See also Guzman II, supra at 360-361 ("we do not discern a legislative intent that the determination of eligibility be tantamount to a testing of the merits of a claimant's case"). guilty of aggravated rape as a joint venturer [on the indictment], it provided no hypothetical basis for the jury to believe he was guilty of the lesser included offense of rape [on that indictment]." (Footnote omitted.) Commonwealth v. Phineas P., supra. 5 The eligibility requirement does not mean that the person seeking relief must establish that his conviction was reversed "on the basis 'of compelling or overwhel 2016The eligibility requirement does not mean that the person seeking relief must establish that his conviction was reversed “on the basis ‘of compelling or overwhelming exculpatory evidence,’ that is, on the grounds that they were actually innocent.” Guzman II, supra at 359, quoting from Guzman v. Commonwealth, 74 Mass. App. Ct. 466, 477 (2009) (Guzman I). | 1 | 1 |
Purity Supreme, Inc. v. Attorney Generalgreen1 sentence1996See Purity Supreme, Inc. v. Attorney Gen., 380 Mass. 762, 769 (1980). | 1 | 1 |
Dandridge v. Williamsgreen1 sentence1975As was stated by the Supreme Court in Dandridge v. Williams, 397 U. S. 471, 485-487 (1970): “In the area of economics and social welfare, a State does not violate the Equal Protection Clause merely because the classifications made by its laws are imperfect. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Massachusetts. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Renaud v. Commonwealth
green
2 sentences2023Renaud, 471 Mass. at 319 . 2023In Renaud, the court responded to the Commonwealth's contention that eligibility under the statute was limited to those individuals who are "in fact, innocent." Id. | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Drumgold v. Commonwealth
green
1 sentence2017In Drumgold, 458 Mass. at 376-379 , decided the same day as Guzman, this court held that the order granting a new trial, based the absence of critical evidence that undermined the credibility of two key prosecution witnesses, satisfied the eligibility requirement of § 1 (B) (ii). | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Guzman v. Commonwealth
green
2 sentences2017We first interpreted the eligibility requirement language in Guzman, 458 Mass. at 357-362 . 2017Guzman, 458 Mass. at 365 . | 1 | 2017–2017 |
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.