Liberace v. Conway

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).