Legal Opinion

Richardson v. Dailey

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Decided February 13, 1997PublishedCited by 18 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtAbrams, J.

A Superior Court judge ruled in favor of the defendants’ motions for summary judgment on the basis that the plaintiff’s claim was barred by § 10 (h) of the Massachusetts Tort Claims Act, G. L. c. 258. The parties concede that G. L. c. 258, § 10 (h), was an inappropriate basis for the allowance of summary judgment. The defendants contend that, although G. L. c. 258 is inapplicable, the allowance of their motions for summary judgment should be affirmed. See Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co. v. Continental Cas. Co., 413 Mass. 730 (1992). We transferred the case to this court on our own motion. We affirm the…

2Cases cited18 opinions

  1. Monell v. New York City Dept. of Social Servs.Supreme Court of the United States · 1978
  2. Estelle v. GambleSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
  3. Parratt v. TaylorSupreme Court of the United States · 1981
  4. Chapman v. Houston Welfare Rights OrganizationSupreme Court of the United States · 1979
  5. Carleen Bowen, Etc. v. City of ManchesterCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1992

13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by18 opinions

  1. Farrah Ex Rel. Estate of Santana v. GondellaDistrict Court, D. Massachusetts · 2010
  2. Jonathon Castro v. County of Los AngelesCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2015
  3. Shapiro v. City of WorcesterMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 2013
  4. 'Abdullah v. Secretary of Public SafetyMassachusetts Appeals Court · 1997
  5. Rodriguez v. Cambridge Housing AuthorityMassachusetts Appeals Court · 2003

13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API