Ducker v. Ducker’s Empirical Analysis
1997
Citation profile
34 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 34 later decisions — most recently November 2012 · most notably Mark Moore Homes, Inc. v. Tarvezian (1998), Cardoza v. Cardoza (2006)
34 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on J. A. Sullivan Corp. v. Commonwealth · Schwanbeck v. Federal-Mogul Corp. · Salamon v. Terra · Reid v. Doherty · Breault v. CHAIRMAN OF BD, FIRE COMMR. OF SPRINGFIELD
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 34 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Unlike a trial de novo, an appeal to this Appellate Division or any appellate court is restricted to issues of law properly raised in the trial court and preserved for appellate review in the form of the trial court’s rulings. Breault v. Chairman of Board of Fire Comm’rs, 401 Mass. 26 , 32 (1987); Huikari v. Eastman, 362 Mass. 867 (1972); Chadwick v. Desroches, 333 Mass. 768 , 769 (1956). Questions of law are ordinarily raised and preserved at a district court trial by the filing of Mass. R. Civ. R 64A requests for rulings of law at the close of the evidence. DiGesse v. Columbia Pontiac Co., 369 Mass. 99, 103-104 (1975); Hogan v. Coleman, 326 Mass. 770, 772 (1951); Cooperstein v. Turner Bros. Construc., Inc., 1992 Mass. App. Div. 249, 251 . The [plaintiff] filed no requests for rulings of law, and [its] mere objection to, or charge of error in, the trial court’s general finding for the [defendants]... presents no question for appellate review. The question of the correctness of a general finding or decision cannot be raised by an exception or claim of report or appeal.... The reason is that exceptions or claims of report or appeals lie only to questions of law, and where there is a general finding, without more, fact and law are interwoven to such an extent that no question of law is presented.’ Mastercraft Wayside Furniture Co. v. Sightmaster Corp., 332 Mass. 383, 386 (1955).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.