Legal Opinion

Corcoran v. Wigglesworth Machinery Co.

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Decided May 3, 1983PublishedCited by 9 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

*1003Judith Corcoran’s primary contention is that her claim is barred by the statute of limitations unless she is allowed to intervene. She argues that it was an abuse of discretion to deny her motion, given this circumstance.

Whether a party should be allowed to intervene is a matter that is largely left to the discretion of the judge below. Mass. R. Civ. P. 24 (b). Boston Licensing Bd. v. Alcoholic Beverages Control Comm’n, 367 Mass. 788, 792-793 (1975).

In considering such a motion, the judge must pass, at the outset, on whether the motion is timely. Timeliness turns in part on: “(1) whether the…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Gaudette v. WebbMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1972
  2. Boston Licensing Board v. Alcoholic Beverages Control CommissionMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1975

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. Coggins v. New England Patriots Football Club, Inc.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1986
  2. Cruz Management Co. v. ThomasMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1994
  3. City of Revere v. Massachusetts Gaming CommissionMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 2017
  4. Bridgeman v. District Attorney for the Suffolk DistrictMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 2015
  5. MacDonald v. MacDonaldMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1990

4 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