6 Massachusetts opinions name it 4 courts 1942–2010 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 |
|---|---|---|
Alba v. Raytheon Co.green1 sentence2010Collateral estoppel bars relitigation only of issues that were “essential to the [prior] judgment.” Alba v. Raytheon Co., 441 Mass. 836, 841 (2004), quoting from Martin v. Ring, 401 Mass. 59, 61 (1987). | 1 | 1 |
Martin v. Ringgreen1 sentence2010Collateral estoppel bars relitigation only of issues that were “essential to the [prior] judgment.” Alba v. Raytheon Co., 441 Mass. 836, 841 (2004), quoting from Martin v. Ring, 401 Mass. 59, 61 (1987). | 1 | 1 |
Hutchinson v. Kinggreen1 sentence2007Second, relying on Hutchinson v. King, 339 Mass. 41, 44 (1959), the trustees claim that, because G. | 1 | 1 |
Blood v. Edgar's, Inc.green1 sentence2007The remaining question is whether Blood v. Edgar’s, Inc., 36 Mass. App. Ct. 402, 405 (1994) bars any challenge to the Trustees’ claim for relief in this case. | 1 | 1 |
Gerrish Corporation, Doing Business as Gerrish Motors, Doing Business as Scrub-A-Dub v. Universal Underwriters Insurance Companygreen2 sentences1995Co., 947 F. 2d 1023, 1030, 1031 (2d Cir. 1991). 9 The Trustees argue that where an insured is ordered involuntarily to pay cleanup costs by a governmental agency (or presumably any third party) — as the Trustees claim they were by virtue of the SMALP suit and the underlying requirement to comply with the Massachusetts Contingency Plan — the owned property exclusion does not bar coverage, regardless of whether contamination is confined to the insured’s property or has migrated elsewhere. 1995Co., 947 F. 2d 1023, 1030, 1031 (2d Cir. 1991). 9 The Trustees argue that where an insured is ordered involuntarily to pay cleanup costs by a governmental agency (or presumably any third party) — as the Trustees claim they were by virtue of the SMALP suit and the underlying requirement to comply with the Massachusetts Contingency Plan — the owned property exclusion does not bar coverage, regardless of whether contamination is confined to the insured’s property or has migrated elsewhere. | 1 | 1 |
United Truck Leasing Corp. v. Geltmangreen1 sentence1992United Truck Leasing Corp. v. Geltman, 406 Mass. 811, 816-817 (1990). | 1 | 1 |
Grammenos v. Zolotasgreen1 sentence1992The report is devoid of any suggestion that the Trustees’ privilege was vitiated by malice or malevolence, see Grammenos v. Zolotas, 356 Mass. 594, 597 (1970); Steranko v. Inforex, Inc., 5 Mass. App. Ct. 253, 273 (1977), or that they acted with an improper motive or employed improper means. | 1 | 1 |
Steranko v. Inforex, Inc.green1 sentence1992The report is devoid of any suggestion that the Trustees’ privilege was vitiated by malice or malevolence, see Grammenos v. Zolotas, 356 Mass. 594, 597 (1970); Steranko v. Inforex, Inc., 5 Mass. App. Ct. 253, 273 (1977), or that they acted with an improper motive or employed improper means. | 1 | 1 |
Pope v. Popegreen1 sentence1942See Pope v. Pope, 209 Mass. 432, 441 ; Sears v. Childs, 309 Mass. 337, 346, 347 . | 1 | 1 |
Sears v. Childsgreen1 sentence1942See Pope v. Pope, 209 Mass. 432, 441 ; Sears v. Childs, 309 Mass. 337, 346, 347 . | 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.