Upload a complaint or brief to quickly find on-point case law.
CARA A.I. uses the facts and legal issues in your document to find relevant authorities.
Drag a complaint or brief hereUpload a complaint or briefPDF documentWORD documentTXT documentOr, choose a document to uploadChoose DocumentSecure
Find on-point cases faster with CARA A.I.
§

Chace v. Curran

71 Mass. App. Ct. 258 (Mass. App. Ct. 2008)
Depth of Treatment
Newest to Oldest
Oldest to Newest
Cite Count
Chace v. Curran

1,000+ Citing cases

  1. Hayden v. McKeon

    No. 22-P-447 (Mass. App. Ct. Aug. 28, 2023)

    A summary decision pursuant to rule 23.0 or rule 1:28 issued after February 25, 2008, may be cited for its persuasive value but, because of the limitations noted above, not as binding precedent. See Chace v. Curran, 71 Mass.App.Ct. 258, 260 n.4 (2008).

  2. Doe v. Sex Offender Registry Bd.

    No. 22-P-546 (Mass. App. Ct. Sep. 28, 2023)

    A summary decision pursuant to rule 23.0 or rule 1:28 issued after February 25, 2008, may be cited for its persuasive value but, because of the limitations noted above, not as binding precedent. See Chace v. Curran, 71 Mass.App.Ct. 258, 260 n.4 (2008).

  3. City of Lawrence v. Lei

    No. 21-P-477 (Mass. App. Ct. Jun. 14, 2022)

    A summary decision pursuant to rule 23.0 or rule 1:28 issued after February 25, 2008, may be cited for its persuasive value but, because of the limitations noted above, not as binding precedent. See Chace v. Curran, 71 Mass.App.Ct. 258, 260 n.4 (2008).

  4. Framingham Hous. Auth. v. Serfozo

    No. 21-P-775 (Mass. App. Ct. May. 9, 2022)

    A summary decision pursuant to rule 23.0 or rule 1:28 issued after February 25, 2008, may be cited for its persuasive value but, because of the limitations noted above, not as binding precedent. See Chace v. Curran, 71 Mass.App.Ct. 258, 260 n.4 (2008). MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 23.

  5. Fils v. Commonwealth

    14-P-963 (Mass. App. Ct. Jan. 27, 2016)

    A summary decision pursuant to rule 1:28 issued after February 25, 2008, may be cited for its persuasive value but, because of the limitations noted above, not as binding precedent. See Chace v. Curran, 71 Mass. App. Ct. 258, 260 n.4 (2008). MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 1:28

  6. United States v. Abreu

    106 F.4th 1 (1st Cir. 2024)

    Gould is an unpublished case issued under a summary disposition rule, and thus the court did not intend for it to have precedential value. See, e.g., Chace v. Curran, 71 Mass.App.Ct. 258, 881 N.E.2d 792, 794 n.4 (2008). For this reason, Gould is unlike the published Iowa state supreme court decision the U.S. Supreme Court relied on in Mathis.

  7. Shea v. Millett

    36 F.4th 1 (1st Cir. 2022)

    Under Massachusetts law, Rule 1:28 decisions "are primarily addressed to the parties and, therefore, may not fully address the facts of the case or the panel's decisional rationale." See Chace v. Curran, 71 Mass.App.Ct. 258, 881 N.E.2d 792, 794 n.4 (Mass. App. Ct. 2008). That is one reason why such decisions may not be cited as binding precedent.

  8. In re Engage

    544 F.3d 50 (1st Cir. 2008)   Cited 63 times
    Finding that “even in the absence of controlling precedent, certification would be inappropriate where state law is sufficiently clear to allow us to predict its course”

    Under the appeals court rules, these decisions, issued prior to February 25, 2008, could not be relied upon or cited as precedent. See Chace v. Curran, 71 Mass.App.Ct. 258, 881 N.E.2d 792, 795 n. 4 (Mass.App.Ct. 2008); Lyons v. Labor Relations Comm'n, 19 Mass.App.Ct. 562, 476 N.E.2d 243, 246 n. 7 (Mass.App.Ct. 1985). We do not consider them.

  9. DeLeo v. Jones

    2:21-cv-00226-JAW (D. Me. Mar. 25, 2024)   Cited 1 times
    In Jones, the court found equitable tolling applied where the plaintiff understood her position would be eliminated and she had “only a mere suspicion of age discrimination” until the employer hired another person for her position.

    ” See id. (citing Chace v. Curran, 881 N.E.2d 792, 794 n.4 (Mass. App. Ct. 2008)). As the language in the appellate decision is not binding and has limited persuasive value since it does not address the facts nor offer any decisional rationale, the Court finds this quoted language offers minimal, if any, persuasive support to the Jones Defendants' position.

  10. Massachusetts ex rel. Powell v. Holmes

    Civil Action 18-11336-FDS (D. Mass. Jun. 7, 2022)

    Moreover, Rule 1:28 decisions are not circulated to the entire court and, therefore, represent only the views of the panel that decided the case.” Chase v. Curran, 71 Mass.App.Ct. 258, 260 n.4 (2008). Massachusetts courts do not consider such opinions to be binding precedent, although they may be cited for “persuasive value.” Id.