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 1983–2020 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 |
|---|---|---|
Barry v. Commonwealthgreen2 sentences2020Although, as stated, Rule 36 is silent regarding periods of delay for which the defendant acquiesced, the Barry case and others have observed "[t]he [Reporters] Notes to subdivision (b) (2) state that periods of delay in which a defendant, acquiesces, for which he is responsible, or from which he benefits should be treated as excluded periods and 'are not to be included in the calculation of the time limits of this rule.'" Barry, 390 Mass. at 295 (quoting Reporters' Notes to Rule 36(b)(2)); see also Commonwealth v. Lauria, 411 Mass. 63, 68 (1991) (same and noting that "when a defendant has not 2020At least since 1983, "[t]he [Reporter's] Notes to subdivision (b) (2) [of Rule 36 have] state[d] that periods of delay in which a defendant acquiesces, for which [the defendant] . . . is responsible, or from which [the defendant] . . . benefits should be excluded periods and 'are not to be included in the calculation --------------------------- [5] For brevity's sake, the court uses the phrase doctrine of acquiescence to refer to delay in which the defendant acquiesced, for which the defendant was responsible, or from which he benefited. -6- of the time limits of this rule'" Bony v. Commonweal | 1 | 3 |
Commonwealth v. Lauriagreen1 sentence2020Although, as stated, Rule 36 is silent regarding periods of delay for which the defendant acquiesced, the Barry case and others have observed "[t]he [Reporters] Notes to subdivision (b) (2) state that periods of delay in which a defendant, acquiesces, for which he is responsible, or from which he benefits should be treated as excluded periods and 'are not to be included in the calculation of the time limits of this rule.'" Barry, 390 Mass. at 295 (quoting Reporters' Notes to Rule 36(b)(2)); see also Commonwealth v. Lauria, 411 Mass. 63, 68 (1991) (same and noting that "when a defendant has not | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Farrisgreen1 sentence2020Although, as stated, Rule 36 is silent regarding periods of delay for which the defendant acquiesced, the Barry case and others have observed "[t]he [Reporters] Notes to subdivision (b) (2) state that periods of delay in which a defendant, acquiesces, for which he is responsible, or from which he benefits should be treated as excluded periods and 'are not to be included in the calculation of the time limits of this rule.'" Barry, 390 Mass. at 295 (quoting Reporters' Notes to Rule 36(b)(2)); see also Commonwealth v. Lauria, 411 Mass. 63, 68 (1991) (same and noting that "when a defendant has not | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Cameron v. Sullivangreen1 sentence2003But see Cameron, 372 Mass. at 132 (applying the one-year period from the date of last rendition of services and finding plaintiffs claim within the limit). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Commonwealth v. Corbin
green
1 sentence1994Commonwealth v. Corbin, 25 Mass. App. Ct. at 980 . | 1 | 1994–1994 |
Commonwealth v. Look
green
1 sentence1983In Barry v. Commonwealth, supra at 295, we affirmed our statement in Commonwealth, v. Look, 379 Mass. 893 , 898 n.2, cert. denied, 449 U.S. 827 (1980), and agreed with the statement of the Reporters’ Notes that periods of delay, “in which a defendant acquiesces, for which he is responsible, or from which he benefits should be treated as excluded periods and ‘are not to be included in the calculation of the time limits of this rule.’” Reporters’ Notes to Mass. R. | 1 | 1983–1983 |
Wilmington United Neighborhoods v. U. S. Department of Health & Human Services
green
1 sentence1983In Barry v. Commonwealth, supra at 295, we affirmed our statement in Commonwealth, v. Look, 379 Mass. 893 , 898 n.2, cert. denied, 449 U.S. 827 (1980), and agreed with the statement of the Reporters’ Notes that periods of delay, “in which a defendant acquiesces, for which he is responsible, or from which he benefits should be treated as excluded periods and ‘are not to be included in the calculation of the time limits of this rule.’” Reporters’ Notes to Mass. R. | 1 | 1983–1983 |
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.