structure analysis (Massachusetts) · Go Syfert
← Massachusetts issues

structure analysis in Massachusetts

6 Massachusetts opinions name it 3 courts 2002–2017 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.

Followed or applied (2)

CaseFollowedCited
Patel v. Amresco SBA Holdings, Inc.green
massappct · 2007 · cited in 4 Massachusetts opinions naming this issue, 2008–2017
2 sentences

2017Although the defendant asserts in a single sentence that her constitutional right to a speedy trial also was violated, "it is the obligation of appellate counsel and not the court to structure an analysis, supported by citation to authorities, that will assist the court in reaching a decision." Patel v. Amresco SBA Holdings, Inc. , 69 Mass. App. Ct. 192 , 197 (2007).

2011As to most of them, we must note “the well-established rule that it is the obligation of appellate counsel and not the court to structure an analysis, supported by citation to authorities, that will assist the court in reaching a decision.” Patel v. Amresco SBA Holdings, Inc., 69 Mass. App. Ct. 192, 197 (2007).

34
Lipchitz v. Raytheon Co.green
mass · 2001 · cited in 1 Massachusetts opinions naming this issue, 2002–2002
1 sentence

2002See Lipchitz v. Raytheon Co., 434 Mass. 493, 508 (2001); Ventresco v. Liberty Mut.

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Massachusetts. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (1)

CaseCitedYears
Duracraft Corp. v. Holmes Products Corp. green
mass · 1998
1 sentence

2013The seminal case of Duracraft, supra, provides the structure for analysis.

12013–2013

Where else courts name it

TX 19 (1925–2015) FL 11 (1979–2021) CA 10 (1990–2020) NY 7 (1885–2006) MA 6 (2002–2017) NM 5 (2003–2013) NC 4 (2016–2019) OH 4 (1993–2020) WA 4 (1996–2015) VT 4 (2013–2025) UT 4 (2014–2025) MI 4 (1991–2023) MO 4 (1981–2020) LA 3 (2006–2021) IA 3 (1981–2018) PA 2 (1948–1978) IL 2 (1914–1983) ND 2 (1990–2017) OK 2 (1908–1908) OR 2 (2000–2009) MN 2 (1996–2026) MD 2 (1969–2004)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check