6 Massachusetts opinions name it 2 courts 1978–2025 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 |
|---|---|---|
Sullivan v. etectRx, Inc.green1 sentence2025See, e.g., Sullivan v. etectRx, Inc., 67 F.4th 487, 492-493 (1st Cir. 2023); Bossé v. New York Life Ins. | 1 | 1 |
Choicener v. Walters Amusement Agency, Inc.green1 sentence2013Mass. 1953), citing Choicener v. Walters Amusement Agency, Inc., 269 Mass. 341, 343 (1929) (“No Massachusetts case has allowed the survival of a claim expressly stated to be for . . . loss of prospective earnings . . . except in so far as the decedent feared such loss and that anxiety aggravated [and thus could be embraced within] conscious pain and suffering”). | 1 | 1 |
Scott v. NG US 1, Inc.green1 sentence2013See note 21, infra. “Ultimately, the decision to disregard settled expectations accompanying corporate form requires a determination that the [shareholder] directed and controlled the [corporation], and used it for an improper purpose, based on evaluative consideration of twelve factors: “(1) common ownership; (2) pervasive control; (3) confused intermingling of business assets; (4) thin capitalization; (5) nonobservance of corporate formalities; (6) absence of corporate records; (7) no payment of dividends; (8) insolvency at the time of the litigated transaction; (9) siphoning away of corpora | 1 | 1 |
Cremins v. Clancygreen1 sentence2006“Whether there is a duty to be careful is a question of law,” Andrade v. Baptiste, 411 Mass. 560, 565 (1992), which we determine “by reference to existing social values and customs and appropriate social policy.” Cremins v. Clancy, 415 Mass. 289, 292 (1993). | 1 | 1 |
Andrade v. Baptistegreen1 sentence2006“Whether there is a duty to be careful is a question of law,” Andrade v. Baptiste, 411 Mass. 560, 565 (1992), which we determine “by reference to existing social values and customs and appropriate social policy.” Cremins v. Clancy, 415 Mass. 289, 292 (1993). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Massachusetts. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Attorney General v. M.C.K., Inc.
green
1 sentence2013See note 21, infra. “Ultimately, the decision to disregard settled expectations accompanying corporate form requires a determination that the [shareholder] directed and controlled the [corporation], and used it for an improper purpose, based on evaluative consideration of twelve factors: “(1) common ownership; (2) pervasive control; (3) confused intermingling of business assets; (4) thin capitalization; (5) nonobservance of corporate formalities; (6) absence of corporate records; (7) no payment of dividends; (8) insolvency at the time of the litigated transaction; (9) siphoning away of corpora | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Drury v. Butler
green
1 sentence1979However, in Drury v. Butler, 171 Mass. 171 (1898), without discussion of the question of the survival of the claim, recovery was allowed in an action of contract against the administrators of the estate of a deceased attorney for the attorney’s negligent failure to commence an action within the period of the statute of limitations. | 1 | 1979–1979 |
Griffiths v. Powers
green
1 sentence1979In Griffiths v. Powers, 216 Mass. 169 (1913), the plaintiff successfully maintained an action of contract against the executor of the will of an attorney. | 1 | 1979–1979 |
Woodward v. Leavitt
green
1 sentence1978The survival of the rule in its application to jury verdicts has been due to widespread apprehension that the jury system could not function effectively if jurors could be examined to determine whether they had adhered to the judge’s instructions. 2 This Commonwealth’s leading case on the subject, followed by the United States Supreme Court in Mattox v. United States, 146 U.S. 140 (1892), is Woodward v. Leavitt, 107 Mass. 453 (1871), which reversed an order denying a motion for a new trial because the judge had considered the testimony of a juror, in support of the verdict, relative to their d | 1 | 1978–1978 |
Clyde Mattox v. United States
green
1 sentence1978The survival of the rule in its application to jury verdicts has been due to widespread apprehension that the jury system could not function effectively if jurors could be examined to determine whether they had adhered to the judge’s instructions. 2 This Commonwealth’s leading case on the subject, followed by the United States Supreme Court in Mattox v. United States, 146 U.S. 140 (1892), is Woodward v. Leavitt, 107 Mass. 453 (1871), which reversed an order denying a motion for a new trial because the judge had considered the testimony of a juror, in support of the verdict, relative to their d | 1 | 1978–1978 |
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.