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 2003–2023 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 |
|---|---|---|
Custody of Eleanorgreen1 sentence2023See Custody of Eleanor, 414 Mass. 795, 802 (1993). | 1 | 1 |
Schechter v. Schechtergreen1 sentence2023See Schechter v. Schechter, 88 Mass. App. Ct. 239, 245 (2015). | 1 | 1 |
Pollock v. Marshallgreen1 sentence2023See Pollock v. Marshall, 391 Mass. 543, 554-555 (1984). | 1 | 1 |
Dotson v. Commissioner of Revenuegreen1 sentence2015See Dotson v. Commissioner of Rev., 82 Mass. App. Ct. 378, 384 (2012) (burden of proof of change of domicil falls on party asserting change). | 1 | 1 |
In re the Estate of Morettigreen1 sentence2013Matter of the Estate of Moretti, 69 Mass. App. Ct. 642, 651 (2007). | 1 | 1 |
Goodman v. Atwoodgreen1 sentence2013We review the judge’s findings for clear error, Goodman v. Atwood, 78 Mass. App. Ct. 655, 658 (2011), giving considerable respect to the judge’s assessment of the testimony. | 1 | 1 |
Starr v. Fordhamgreen1 sentence2003Our review “is circumscribed by the deference [we] must give to decisions of the trier of fact, who is usually in a superior position to appraise and weigh the evidence.” Starr v. Fordham, 420 Mass. 178, 186 (1995), quoting First Pa. Mtge. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Massachusetts. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
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.