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 1983–2010 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 |
|---|---|---|
United States v. Powellgreen2 sentences2009Co. the court, citing United States v. Powell, 379 U.S. 48, 57-58 (1964), stated that it should enforce the subpoena “provided that it has a legitimate purpose within the Secretary’s statutory authority; the information sought by the Subpoena may be relevant to the Secretary’s inquiry; the information sought is not already within the Secretary’s possession, and the Subpoena has not been issued for an improper purpose, such as harassment . . .’’In The Gillette Co., the court quoted the standard for enforcement of IRS subpoenas in United States v. Gertner, 65 F.3d 963, 966 (1st Cir. 1995): “when 2006See United States v. Powell 379 U.S. 48, 57-58 (1964) (Commissioner of Internal Revenue need not meet standard of probable cause to obtain enforcement of his summons) . | 2 | 2 |
Allen v. Boston Redevelopment Authoritygreen1 sentence2010See Allen v. Boston Redevelopment Auth., 450 Mass. at 254 . | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Nancy Gertner, Etc., John Doe, Intervenorgreen1 sentence2009Co. the court, citing United States v. Powell, 379 U.S. 48, 57-58 (1964), stated that it should enforce the subpoena “provided that it has a legitimate purpose within the Secretary’s statutory authority; the information sought by the Subpoena may be relevant to the Secretary’s inquiry; the information sought is not already within the Secretary’s possession, and the Subpoena has not been issued for an improper purpose, such as harassment . . .’’In The Gillette Co., the court quoted the standard for enforcement of IRS subpoenas in United States v. Gertner, 65 F.3d 963, 966 (1st Cir. 1995): “when | 1 | 1 |
Packaging Industries Group, Inc. v. Cheneygreen1 sentence2000FINDINGS OF FACT “By definition, a preliminary injunction must be granted or denied after an abbreviated presentation of the facts and the law.” Packaging Industries Group, Inc. v. Cheney, 380 Mass. 609, 616 (1980). | 1 | 1 |
Varney Enterprises, Inc. v. WMF, INC.green1 sentence1995In Varney Enters., Inc. v. WMF, Inc., 402 Mass. 79, 79 (1988), we held that, “except for small claim matters, a corporation may not be represented in judicial proceedings by a corporate officer who is not an attorney licensed to practice law in the Commonwealth.” Corporations, including nonprofit corporations, are artificial persons. | 1 | 1 |
Schulte v. Director of the Division of Employment Securitygreen2 sentences1983Schulte v. Director of the Div. of Employment Sec., 369 Mass. 74, 79 (1975). 1983Schulte v. Director of the Div. of Employment Sec., 369 Mass. 74, 79 (1975). | 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.