Section 6. In an action for the recovery of an outstanding debt or claim sold or assigned by an executor or administrator under a license of the probate court costs shall be recovered by or against the plaintiff but not against the executor or administrator. Any such action which is not governed by the Massachusetts Rules of Civil Procedure or the District-Municipal Courts Rules of Civil Procedure shall be brought in the names of the purchaser or assignee, and the fact of the sale shall be set forth in the pleadings. The defendant may avail himself of any defense which would have been open to him upon an action or proceeding brought by an executor or administrator.
Blockel v. J.C. Penney Co., 337 F.3d 17 (1st Cir. 2003). “Although the MCAD may well *31 look to that provision for guidance in calculating the rate of prejudgment interest, it ultimately derives its authority from the statute governing its own processes.”
Vittands v. Sudduth, 730 N.E.2d 325 (Mass. App. Ct. 2000). “Shortly thereafter, on June 23, 1994, Sudduth filed four counterclaims against the neighbors, claiming abuse of process and intentional infliction of emotional distress, costs under G. L. c. 231, §§ 6 and 7, and requesting sanctions against Cassidy under Mass.”
DeMarco v. Martin, 2003 Mass. App. Div. 95 (Mass. Dist. Ct., App. Div. 2003). “There is no question but that G.Lc. 231, §6(D) prevents a plaintiff in an auto accident case from proceeding with a civil lawsuit for pain and suffering absent the incurrence of at least $2000.”
Sierra Fria Corp. v. DONALD J. EVANS (PC), 978 F. Supp. 39 (D. Mass. 1996). · cites it 2דPRE-JUDGMENT INTEREST Mr. Rocha argues that pre-judgment interest should run only from the date the counterclaim was filed, because there was insufficient evidence to establish the date of the “breach or demand” within the meaning of M.”
Commonwealth v. Deeran, 481 N.E.2d 537 (Mass. App. Ct. 1985). “” There is no express grant of jurisdiction to review an order of a single justice of the Supreme Judicial Court. Compare Katz v.”
Alford v. Superspeed Software, Inc., 23 Mass. L. Rptr. 403 (Mass. Super. Ct. 2007). “See G.L.c. 231, §6(c). As noted supra, some, indeed perhaps most, of those provisions simply acknowledge restrictions that would apply regardless of any contract or company policy.”
Lyons v. News Grp. Boston, Inc., 415 Mass. 274 (Mass. 1993). “Tennant *276 subsequently counterclaimed against Lyons for abuse of process, violation of the Massachusetts Civil Rights Act, and attorney’s fees pursuant to G. L. c. 231, § 6 (/) (1990 ed.). All defendants moved for summary judgment on the libel counts pursuant to Mass.”
Roberts v. Grise, 3 Mass. Supp. 201 (Mass. Dist. Ct. 1982). “G.L.c. 231, § 6(c). Lexington v. Bedford, Mass.”
Adams v. Delphi Internet Servs. Corp., 9 Mass. L. Rptr. 235 (Mass. Super. Ct. 1998). “For purposes of G.L.c. 231, §6, a “demand” has taken place “if the party charged is informed ‘of the basis and extent of its obligation, as well as the fact that performance [is] then due.”
DeMarco v. Martin, 2003 Mass. App. Div. 95 (Mass. Dist. Ct., App. Div. 2003). “There is no question but that G.Lc. 231, §6(D) prevents a plaintiff in an auto accident case from proceeding with a civil lawsuit for pain and suffering absent the incurrence of at least $2000.”
Sierra Fria Corp. v. DONALD J. EVANS (PC), 978 F. Supp. 39 (D. Mass. 1996). “PRE-JUDGMENT INTEREST Mr. Rocha argues that pre-judgment interest should run only from the date the counterclaim was filed, because there was insufficient evidence to establish the date of the “breach or demand” within the meaning of M.”
Alford v. Superspeed Software, Inc., 23 Mass. L. Rptr. 403 (Mass. Super. Ct. 2007). “See G.L.c. 231, §6(c). As noted supra, some, indeed perhaps most, of those provisions simply acknowledge restrictions that would apply regardless of any contract or company policy.”
Roberts v. Grise, 3 Mass. Supp. 201 (Mass. Dist. Ct. 1982). “G.L.c. 231, § 6(c). Lexington v. Bedford, Mass.”
Commonwealth v. Deeran, 481 N.E.2d 537 (Mass. App. Ct. 1985). “” There is no express grant of jurisdiction to review an order of a single justice of the Supreme Judicial Court. Compare Katz v.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.