Massachusetts Appeals Court· 7/9/1991

Liberace v. Conway

Citations

574 N.E.2d 1010
31 Mass. App. Ct. 40

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

holding that M.G.L. ch. 260 § 32 applies to state law claims dismissed by federal court which had declined to exercise pendent jurisdiction.
stating that failure to provide a defendant with notice is a matter of substance rather than form
identifying a “disposition not to clip the wings of the statute through narrow interpretation, so long as the plaintiff had given the defendant timely notice of recourse to a court”
“It would surely be anomalous to adopt a construction of § 32 which deprived pendent claims of the statute’s benefit and thereby pressed on the Federal courts retention of jurisdiction over those claims”
“action” includes claim brought originally in Federal court
interpreting ALM GL ch. 260, § 32

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Kass, Porada, Laurence

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

25 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

18 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.