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 1976–2024 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 |
|---|---|---|
Commonwealth v. McHoulgreen2 sentences2024See note 4, supra. This court officially adopted the Model Penal Code rule in McHoul, 352 Mass. at 547 , noting, "we regard the Code definition as an evolutionary restatement of our [Rogers] rule rather than a substantively new rule." 7 These jurisdictions have not adopted the Model Penal Code standard for determining criminal responsibility but instead continue to adhere to the single-prong "right-wrong" test as first articulated in M'Naghten's Case, 8 Eng. 2024See note 4, supra. This court officially adopted the Model Penal Code rule in McHoul, 352 Mass. at 547 , noting, "we regard the Code definition as an evolutionary restatement of our [Rogers] rule rather than a substantively new rule." 7 These jurisdictions have not adopted the Model Penal Code standard for determining criminal responsibility but instead continue to adhere to the single-prong "right-wrong" test as first articulated in M'Naghten's Case, 8 Eng. | 2 | 4 |
Commonwealth v. Healygreen1 sentence2009In Commonwealth v. Healy, 26 Mass. App. Ct. 990, 991 (1988), we held that the “argument that this court should overrule the Supreme Judicial Court’s decision ... is frivolous, as we lack any such power.” “In fact, from the very earliest decisions we issued and continuing to this day, we have uniformly and unequivocally held we have no power to alter, overrule or decline to follow the holding of cases the Supreme Judicial Court has decided.” Commonwealth v. Dube, 59 Mass. App. Ct. 476, 485 (2003), and cases cited. | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Dubegreen1 sentence2009In Commonwealth v. Healy, 26 Mass. App. Ct. 990, 991 (1988), we held that the “argument that this court should overrule the Supreme Judicial Court’s decision ... is frivolous, as we lack any such power.” “In fact, from the very earliest decisions we issued and continuing to this day, we have uniformly and unequivocally held we have no power to alter, overrule or decline to follow the holding of cases the Supreme Judicial Court has decided.” Commonwealth v. Dube, 59 Mass. App. Ct. 476, 485 (2003), and cases cited. | 1 | 1 |
State Ex Rel. Schopf v. Schubertgreen2 sentences1976Schopf v. Schubert, 45 Wis.2d 644, 648 (1970) (burden on State under M'Naghten test; burden on defendant under Model Penal Code test). [11] The amount of evidence necessary to vitiate the presumption varies within these jurisdictions. 1976Schopf v. Schubert, 45 Wis.2d 644, 648 (1970) (burden on State under M’Naghten test; burden on defendant under Model Penal Code test). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Massachusetts. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
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.