# Roche v. Roche

> Massachusetts Appeals Court · June 4, 1986 · 22 Mass. App. Ct. 306

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9726112

## Case

- **Full name:** Kathleen M. Roche vs. John J. Roche & Another (And a Companion Case)
- **Court:** Massachusetts Appeals Court
- **Decided:** June 4, 1986
- **Citations:** 22 Mass. App. Ct. 306; 493 N.E.2d 523
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Brown
- **Judges:** Grant, Brown, Kass
- **Cited by:** 18 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/9726112

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- explaining that Massachusetts’s preclusion rules are narrower than those imposed by federal law

## Opinion text

Brown, J.
(concurring). I have no quarrel with the careful and erudite analysis of the majority. I, however, would reach the same result relying merely on one of the grounds put forward by the majority. A. court of equity faced with allegations as serious as those made by the plaintiff may not stand by blindly and allow a party “the benefit of claim preclusion when that *313 [party] took steps calculated to assure the exclusion of the claim from the prior litigation.” Legal doctrines and procedural niceties should never be allowed to shield chicanery or prevent fair and commonsense solutions to clear cases. Cf. Demeter v. Demeter, 9 Mass. App. Ct. 860 (1980).

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9726112. Public record. Not legal advice.