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 3 courts 1985–2024 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 |
|---|---|---|
Honey Dew Associates, Inc. v. M & K Food Corp.green2 sentences2006The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit recognized this gap in Honey Dew Assocs., Inc. v. M & K Food Corp., 241 F.3d 23, 27 (1st Cir. 2001), and concluded that if this court were to decide the issue, “it would assign the burden of proving the unenforceability of a liquidated damages clause to the party raising that defense.” Id. 2006The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit recognized this gap in Honey Dew Assocs., Inc. v. M & K Food Corp., 241 F.3d 23, 27 (1st Cir. 2001), and concluded that if this court were to decide the issue, “it would assign the burden of proving the unenforceability of a liquidated damages clause to the party raising that defense.” Id. | 2 | 2 |
Commonwealth v. Ringuettegreen1 sentence2016See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Ringuette, 60 Mass. App. Ct. 351, 360-361 , S.C., 443 Mass. 1003 (2004). | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Ringuettegreen1 sentence2016See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Ringuette, 60 Mass. App. Ct. 351, 360-361 , S.C., 443 Mass. 1003 (2004). | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Lopezgreen1 sentence2015See Lopez, supra at 499 . | 1 | 1 |
Sealfon v. United Statesgreen1 sentence2015See Sealfon v. United States, 332 U.S. 575, 578-579 (1948)” (footnote omitted). *545 In making this determination, the court must look for the concurrence of a (1) common factual issue, (2) prior determination of that issue between the same parties, 11 and (3) determination of that issue in favor of the party raising the doctrine of collateral estoppel. | 1 | 1 |
Sarni Original Dry Cleaners, Inc. v. Ronnie Lee Cookegreen1 sentence1985Sar ni Original Dry Cleaners, Inc. v. Cooke, 388 Mass. 611, 617 (1983). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Massachusetts. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Carleton v. Town of Framingham
green
1 sentence2024A party raising such a challenge has "a heavy burden to meet" under this standard of review," and we will recognize every rational presumption in favor of the legislation." Carleton, supra, citing American Mfrs. | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Ashe v. Swenson
green
2 sentences2016As defined by the United Stated Supreme Court in Ashe, 397 U.S. at 443 , the doctrine of collateral estoppel provides that “when an issue of ultimate fact has once been determined by a valid and final judgment, that issue cannot again be litigated between the same parties in any future lawsuit.” To establish collateral estoppel, the party raising the bar has the burden of providing a “concurrence of three circumstances”: (1) a factual issue common to both prosecutions, (2) “a prior determination of that issue in litigation between the same parties,” and (3) a determination in the prior proceed 2016As defined by the United Stated Supreme Court in Ashe, 397 U.S. at 443 , the doctrine of collateral estoppel provides that “when an issue of ultimate fact has once been determined by a valid and final judgment, that issue cannot again be litigated between the same parties in any future lawsuit.” To establish collateral estoppel, the party raising the bar has the burden of providing a “concurrence of three circumstances”: (1) a factual issue common to both prosecutions, (2) “a prior determination of that issue in litigation between the same parties,” and (3) a determination in the prior proceed | 1 | 2016–2016 |
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.