# Silva v. City of Fall River

> Massachusetts Appeals Court · November 4, 2003 · 59 Mass. App. Ct. 798

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6461983

## Case

- **Full name:** Paul F. Silva v. City of Fall River & another
- **Court:** Massachusetts Appeals Court
- **Decided:** November 4, 2003
- **Citations:** 59 Mass. App. Ct. 798; 798 N.E.2d 297; 2003 Mass. App. LEXIS 1183
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Brown
- **Judges:** Brown, Cypher
- **Cited by:** 5 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6461983

## Opinion text

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.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6461983. Public record. Not legal advice.