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 1 courts 1941–1963 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 |
|---|---|---|
Berthiaume's Casegreen2 sentences1963Berthiaume’s Case, 328 Mass. 186, 191 . 1958See Berthiaume’s Case, 328 Mass. 186, 190-191 . 3. | 1 | 2 |
Evans's Casegreen1 sentence1951See Evans’s Case, 299 Mass. 435 ; Craddock’s Case, 310 Mass. 116 . *192 The decree must be reversed and the case recommitted to the Industrial Accident Board to determine whether, as provided by § 44, the insurer, insured or agent had knowledge of the injury, or whether the insurer was prejudiced by want of notice. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Massachusetts. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Zabec's Case
green
2 sentences1958Although the evidence of absence of prejudice is not as strong as that in some cases (see Wnukowski’s Case, 296 Mass. 63, 65-67 ; Zabec’s Case, 302 Mass. 465, 467-469 ; Watson’s Case, 322 Mass. 581, 584-585 ; Charron’s Case, 331 Mass. 519, 521 ), we cannot say that there was insufficient basis in the evidence for the board’s finding that neither failure to give notice nor the late filing of claim was prejudicial to the city. 1958Zabec’s Case, 302 Mass. 465 . | 3 | 1941–1958 |
Wnukowski's Case
green
1 sentence1958Although the evidence of absence of prejudice is not as strong as that in some cases (see Wnukowski’s Case, 296 Mass. 63, 65-67 ; Zabec’s Case, 302 Mass. 465, 467-469 ; Watson’s Case, 322 Mass. 581, 584-585 ; Charron’s Case, 331 Mass. 519, 521 ), we cannot say that there was insufficient basis in the evidence for the board’s finding that neither failure to give notice nor the late filing of claim was prejudicial to the city. | 1 | 1958–1958 |
Watson's Case
green
1 sentence1958Although the evidence of absence of prejudice is not as strong as that in some cases (see Wnukowski’s Case, 296 Mass. 63, 65-67 ; Zabec’s Case, 302 Mass. 465, 467-469 ; Watson’s Case, 322 Mass. 581, 584-585 ; Charron’s Case, 331 Mass. 519, 521 ), we cannot say that there was insufficient basis in the evidence for the board’s finding that neither failure to give notice nor the late filing of claim was prejudicial to the city. | 1 | 1958–1958 |
Charron's Case
green
1 sentence1958Although the evidence of absence of prejudice is not as strong as that in some cases (see Wnukowski’s Case, 296 Mass. 63, 65-67 ; Zabec’s Case, 302 Mass. 465, 467-469 ; Watson’s Case, 322 Mass. 581, 584-585 ; Charron’s Case, 331 Mass. 519, 521 ), we cannot say that there was insufficient basis in the evidence for the board’s finding that neither failure to give notice nor the late filing of claim was prejudicial to the city. | 1 | 1958–1958 |
Perrotta's Case
green
1 sentence1956Perrotta’s Case, 318 Mass. 737, 739 . | 1 | 1956–1956 |
Coakley's Case
neutral
2 sentences1951We think the proper course to follow is that adopted in Coakley’s Case, 284 Mass. 559, 562 , where there was no finding by the board on the issue as to prejudice arising from the absence of notice and where it was properly decided that no prejudice to the insurer resulted from a late filing of the claim. 1951We think the proper course to follow is that adopted in Coakley’s Case, 284 Mass. 559, 562 , where there was no finding by the board on the issue as to prejudice arising from the absence of notice and where it was properly decided that no prejudice to the insurer resulted from a late filing of the claim. | 1 | 1951–1951 |
Craddock's Case
green
1 sentence1951See Evans’s Case, 299 Mass. 435 ; Craddock’s Case, 310 Mass. 116 . *192 The decree must be reversed and the case recommitted to the Industrial Accident Board to determine whether, as provided by § 44, the insurer, insured or agent had knowledge of the injury, or whether the insurer was prejudiced by want of notice. | 1 | 1951–1951 |
Horan v. Inhabitants of Watertown
green
1 sentence1941Horan v. Watertown, 217 Mass. 185 . | 1 | 1941–1941 |
Gaffer's Case
green
1 sentence1941Gaffer’s Case, 279 Mass. 566 . | 1 | 1941–1941 |
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.