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 2004–2025 2 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 |
|---|---|---|
Phillips Exeter Academy v. Howard Phillips Fund, Inc.green2 sentences2023"An affirmative finding on each of the three elements of the test is required to support a finding of specific jurisdiction." Id. 2015“An affirmative finding on each of the three elements of the test is required ...” Phillips Exeter Academy v. Howard Phillips Fund, Inc., 196 F.3d 284, 288 (1st Cir. 1999). a. | 2 | 3 |
Kobrin v. Board of Registration in Medicinegreen2 sentences2025Id. at 843-844 . 7 Here, the Bankerts were barred from litigating Deutsche Bank's right to foreclose under the doctrine of claim preclusion, as each of the three elements of claim preclusion was satisfied in this case. 2013See Kobrin v. Board of Registration in Med., 444 Mass. 837, 843 (2005) (same elements apply under Massachusetts law). | 1 | 2 |
Hatch v. Trail King Industries, Inc.green1 sentence2013See Allen v. McCurry, supra. 2 Under Federal law, the three elements of claim preclusion are “(1) a final judgment on the merits in an earlier proceeding, (2) sufficient identically between the causes of action asserted in the earlier and later suits, and (3) sufficient identicality between the parties in the two actions.” Hatch v. Trail King Indus., Inc., 699 F.3d 38, 45 (1st Cir. 2012). | 1 | 1 |
Allen v. McCurrygreen1 sentence2013See Allen v. McCurry, supra. 2 Under Federal law, the three elements of claim preclusion are “(1) a final judgment on the merits in an earlier proceeding, (2) sufficient identically between the causes of action asserted in the earlier and later suits, and (3) sufficient identicality between the parties in the two actions.” Hatch v. Trail King Indus., Inc., 699 F.3d 38, 45 (1st Cir. 2012). | 1 | 1 |
DaLuz v. Department of Correctiongreen1 sentence2004Both Beals and Commercial correctly make their arguments in terms of “claim preclusion.” As the party moving for summary judgment, Commercial had the burden of establishing the three elements of claim preclusion as set out in DaLuz v. Department of Correction, 434 Mass. 40, 44-45 (2001): “ ‘ “When arbitration affords opportunity for presentation of evidence and argument substantially similar in form and scope to judicial proceedings, the award should have the same effect on issues necessarily determined as a judgment has.” Bailey v. Metropolitan Property & Liab. | 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.