Your case is unique, but you are not alone.

About 41,000 new cases are filed in U.S. courts every weekday. Behind each one is a person trying to understand what happens next. Here’s what the public record can tell you about this matter — and about the people deciding it.

  • Know your judge

    Every judge has a pattern — what they grant, what they deny, how they handle the kinds of motions your case will see.

  • Know your attorney

    See an attorney’s actual track record — case types, courts, and how they’ve performed in front of this judge before.

  • Know your court

    Every courthouse has its own rhythm — filing-to-resolution times, common dispositions, how often cases like yours settle.

Is this judge more likely to rule for the plaintiff or the defendant in cases of this type?

How has your attorney actually performed in front of this judge?

AICasePredict surfaces patterns from public court records. We don’t predict outcomes and we don’t recommend changing your attorney — that’s a conversation for you and them. We just show you what the record already says.

Full Analytics Report

  • Complete case narrative
  • Judge details and rulings
  • Case disposition and outcome
  • All docket entries
  • Related cases and filings
$20
One-time purchase

Case Information

Filed 2025-09-08
Status Closed
Type Ota Other
Docket 10 entries
Disposition case dismissed

Parties

Plaintiff Kane, Mary|Davis, Cheri
Defendant Cockcroft, Herbert|Cockcroft, Leslie

Docket Entries

  1. ase Dismissed by Order of the Court.
  2. ase assigned to the Average Track per Land Court Standing Order 1:04.
  3. and Court miscellaneous filing fee Receipt: 463521 Date: 09/08/2025
  4. and Court surcharge Receipt: 463521 Date: 09/08/2025
  5. and Court summons Receipt: 463521 Date: 09/08/2025
  6. niform Counsel Certificate for Civil Cases filed by Plaintiff.
  7. he case has been assigned to the A Track. Notice sent. Notice of Judge and Track Assignment sent to Mary Kane by email.
  8. he Court has reviewed the complaint filed by Mary Kane in this case. The complaint does not meet the requirements of Rules 10(a) and 10(d) of the Massachusetts Rules of Civil Procedure, as the complaint doesn't list the names of all parties who have brought the complaint. Ms. Kane filed the complaint on September 8, 2025. With it she filed a civil-action cover sheet. On it she listed two plaintiffs, herself and Cheri Davis. The complaint doesn't mention Davis, however, nor does it give her address. Rules 10(a) and 10(d) require the complaint to give Ms. Davis's name, capacity, and address if she is suing. Moreover, there's no indication in the complaint that Ms. Kane is an attorney. She thus cannot represent Ms. Davis in this action or speak for her. The Court thus ORDERS Ms. Kane and Ms. Davis to file by September 26, 2025, an amended complaint that corrects those errors, one signed by both Ms. Kane and Ms. Davis unless they hire an attorney by then to represent both of them. The amended complaint also must comply with all other requirements set forth in Rules 10(a), 10(b), and 10(d). The Court further takes judicial notice that the properties at issue in this case, 34 Old County Road and 32 Old County Road, are registered land. The registered owners of 34 Old County Road are Ms. Kane and Ms. Davis, according to Certificate of Title No. 176297, issued by the Barnstable District Registry of the Land Court. The registered owners of 32 Old County Road are defendants Herbert Cockcroft and his wife Leslie Cockcroft (both last names misspelled "Cockroft" in Ms. Kane's complaint), according to Barnstable District Certificate of Title No 174420. Both properties appear on the same Land Court Plan, Plan No. 14096-J (34 Old County being Lot 10 on that plan and 32 Old County being Lot 9). Because the properties are registered land, the boundary between them is fixed and is as shown on Plan No. 14096-J. The Cockcrofts thus cannot claim by prescription or otherwise any part of what that Plan No.14096-J shows as Lot 9. See General Laws chapter 185, section 53. The Land Court thus will have subject-matter jurisdiction over the claims described in the complaint only if, for example, there is a dispute over the physical location of the boundary shown on Plan No. 14096-J. The Court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over simple claims for trespass, even if the trespass occurs on registered land. SO ORDERED. Judge: Vhay, Hon. Michael D. Notice of Docket Entry was generated and sent to: Plaintiff: Mary Kane 34 Old County Road, Harwich Port, MA 02646 Sent On: 09/16/2025 15:22:47 Notice of Docket Entry sent to Mary Kane by email.
  9. equest from Ms. Kane to Dismiss the Case, filed.
  10. t Ms. Kane's request, the Court DISMISSES this case without prejudice. SO ORDERED. Judge: Vhay, Hon. Michael D. Notice of Docket Entry was generated and sent to: Plaintiff: Mary Kane 34 Old County Road, Harwich Port, MA 02646 Sent On: 09/18/2025 07:52:34

See the patterns behind this case

The free view above tells you who’s in the room. The detailed reports below show how the room tends to behave — using the same public records lawyers quietly rely on before every hearing.

  • Judge Report

    How this judge has ruled in cases like yours — case mix, motion outcomes, and historical docket. Judges set the floor of what’s possible in your courtroom.

  • Attorney vs Judge Report

    Everything in the Judge Report, plus how your attorney has actually performed in front of this judge. Attorneys move you off the floor — or don’t.

Get Free Case Details

Enter your email to receive case information including parties, docket entries, and status updates.

By submitting you agree to our Privacy Policy.

Need this case removed? Enter your email above — the confirmation email includes a case removal link.