“Here, however, with uncontradicted evidence that the funds are deposited to Fall River’s general account and nothing in the record to indicate the basis on which the charge was calculated or how the funds are used to defray expenses, we cannot conclude that the money collected is not used to subsidize general governmental operations.”
How later courts described this case
- “Here, however, with uncontradicted evidence that the funds are deposited to Fall River’s general account and nothing in the record to indicate the basis on which the charge was calculated or how the funds are used to defray expenses, we cannot conclude that the money collected is not used to subsidize general governmental operations.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Brown, I.
(concurring in result). I see no need to take a positian on the analysis of the majority. I write only to point out that Fall River, like so many other litigants, did not fully apprecíate the devastating consequences that may ensue from a *808 failure to understand the summary judgment procedural protocol.
As soon as the summary judgment materials were presented to the Superior Court for resolution, Fall River was doomed, as it had failed to controvert the assertions of the moving party. See Community Natl. Bank v. Dawes, 369 Mass. 550, 553-556 (1976), for boilerplate language setting out the prescribed scenario to be followed in a summary judgment context. Dawes is the seminal case, but its progeny is long and explicit.