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 1982–2020 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 |
|---|---|---|
Commonwealth v. Cervenygreen2 sentences2008In this respect Massachusetts common law mirrored Federal law because the United States Supreme Court had “made it clear that the Federal law doctrine of nonmutual collateral estoppel does not apply to criminal cases.” Id. at 284 . 2008See Standefer v. United States, supra at 25 (doctrine inappropriate where parties not mutual because policy considerations in criminal cases “outweigh the economy concerns that undergird the estoppel doctrine”). 5 While we have considered whether mutuality of the parties is required where inconsistent verdicts are at issue, Commonwealth v. Cerveny, supra, we previously have not considered whether mutuality is required for an order suppressing evidence to have preclusive effect against the Commonwealth, a question of law we now consider de nova. | 2 | 2 |
Michael P. Parenti v. Joseph J. Pontegreen1 sentence1997Although there is no Federal liberty interest regarding disciplinary isolation, see O’Malley, 415 Mass. at 136; Parenti v. Ponte, 727 F.2d 21, 23 (1st Cir. 1984); contrast e.g. | 1 | 1 |
O'MALLEY v. Sheriff of Worcester Countygreen1 sentence1997Although there is no Federal liberty interest regarding disciplinary isolation, see O’Malley, 415 Mass. at 136; Parenti v. Ponte, 727 F.2d 21, 23 (1st Cir. 1984); contrast e.g. | 1 | 1 |
Calimlim v. Foreign Car Center, Inc.green1 sentence1993See Calimlim v. Foreign Car Ctr., Inc., 392 Mass. 228, 235-236 (1984) (prohibiting recovery of cumulative damages under multiple counts of a complaint). 6 The defendants argue at some length that the plaintiff failed to show, as part of his prima facie case, that he was qualified for the position he held. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Massachusetts. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Gebser v. Lago Vista Independent School District
green
1 sentence2020To sustain a cause of action that is not based on an "official policy" of a university, a plaintiff must show that "an official who at a minimum [had] authority to address the alleged discrimination and to institute corrective measures on the recipient's behalf [had] actual knowledge of discrimination" and responded with "deliberate 41 indifference." Gebser, 524 U.S. at 290 . | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Pidge v. SUPERINTENDENT, MASS CORRECTIONAL INST
green
1 sentence1997However, as the Appeals Court stressed in Pidge, 32 Mass.App.Ct. at 19 , itis doubtful that the sixty-day limitations period of G.L.c. 249, §4 may cut off a Federal law claim which, under Federal law, would have a longer limitations period. | 1 | 1997–1997 |
Standefer v. United States
green
1 sentence1982In the recent case of Standefer v. United States, 447 U.S. 10 (1980), the United States Supreme Court made it clear that the Federal law doctrine of nonmutual collateral estop-pel does not apply to criminal cases. | 1 | 1982–1982 |
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.