Thomas's Case
Massachusetts Appeals Court
1Opinion of the Court
1. The compensation benefits. There is no contention by the claimant that she has not in fact received the maximum amount of compensation benefits provided for by § 31. Rather, her argument is that, as no appeal was taken from the judgment, it was in effect when the self-insurer discontinued payments. As the judgment controls and calls for “continuing” payments, the self-insurer violated the court order when it ceased making payments. As authority for the claim, the claimant relies upon Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary of Saint Benedict Center, Inc. v. Dalton, 397 Mass. 784, 788 n.5…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Johnson's CaseMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1922
- Sarrouf v. New England Patriots Football Club, Inc.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1986
- McLeod's CaseMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1983
- Coupounas v. MaddenMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1987
- Shapiro v. BailenMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1936
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Metropolitan Property & Liability Insurance v. RalphSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1994
- Dunne v. City of BostonMassachusetts Appeals Court · 1996
- Prudential Insurance Co. of America v. City of Boston (In re SW Boston Hotel Venture, LLC)Bankruptcy Appellate Panel of the First Circuit · 2012
- Russo's CaseMassachusetts Appeals Court · 1999