Peter B. Krupp
How Judge Krupp rules, drawn from 17 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Krupp
Peter B. Krupp is an associate justice of the Massachusetts Superior Court and has served in its Business Litigation Session. Governor Deval Patrick nominated him in November 2012, and the Governor’s Council confirmed him in January 2013. He earned a bachelor’s degree from Brown University and a law degree from the University of Chicago.
Judge Krupp's practices and standing orders
The court's website lists no individual practices or standing orders of Judge Krupp's own (checked October 11, 2026), so the court's local rules and general orders are the place to look (court page ↗).
Standing orders for every case in this court
Orders the court applies to all of its cases, whichever judge has them, as published on the court's website (checked October 11, 2026).
- Procedural Order Regarding Reply Memoranda ↗
- Procedural Order Regarding Partially Dispositive Motions ↗
- Procedural Order Regarding Appearances by Telephone ↗
- Formal Guidance Regarding Hearings, Trials, and Electronic Filings ↗
- Formal Guidance Regarding Protective Orders ↗
- Standing Order 1-23: E-Filing Policies and Procedures for Civil Actions ↗
- Formal Guidance Regarding Motions for Reconsideration ↗
How Judge Krupp decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
Procedural preferences
In Commonwealth v. Souza, Krupp found that an officer’s specialized training did not replace factual observations establishing probable cause for a drug arrest.
“The specialized training of a police officer is not a substitute for factual observations upon which a trained police officer may base probable cause that a particular interaction involved the surreptitious distribution of drugs.”
Cautions
In Adams v. Congress Auto Insurance Agency, Krupp granted the agency summary judgment on a negligence claim over its handling of confidential information because Adams had not produced expert testimony on the insurance industry's standard of care.
“Practices and policies for maintaining, and governing access to, confidential information in the insurance business are not matters of common knowledge or experience. Adams therefore must bring forward qualified expert testimony to proceed on his negligence claim.”
In Neal v. City of Boston, Krupp limited a fee award where the record did not show enough about some lawyers’ work to assess the claimed amounts.
“I do not have sufficient information in the record as to the work performed by the other lawyers and law firms to allow me to assess the reasonableness of the amounts Mr. Neal says he paid to them.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment (Docket # 10) is ALLOWED. Defendant’s Cross Motion for Summary Judgment (Docket #11) is DENIED.”
“Accordingly, I have denied the motion to strike.”
“Defendant’s Partial Motion to Dismiss (Docket #6.0) is ALLOWED in part insofar as Count Three is dismissed because it is barred by the principle of sovereign immunity. As to Count One, the motion is DENIED without prejudice to similar arguments being raised in response to a motion to amend or on a motion filed in response to an amended pleading.”
“Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Docket #15) is ALLOWED. Judgment shall enter for defendant.”
“Plaintiff Mark Adams’ Motion to Amend the Complaint (Docket #13) is DENIED.”
“Plaintiff Mark Adams’ Motion to Compel Defendant to Provide a Supplemental Discovery Response (Docket #14) is DENIED.”
“The Motion to Dismiss the Complaint and Jury Demand is ALLOWED in part insofar as Counts I, II, III and v. are dismissed. The motion is DENIED as to Count IV.”
“For these reasons, Yankowski’s motion to dismiss Count I is denied.”
“the court grants the Company’s motion to dismiss so much of Count II as alleges a breach of contract with respect to deferred compensation.”
“Defendants’ motions to dismiss are ALLOWED in part to the extent that George’s claim in Count I under the Wage Act is limited to three years prior to the date of filing (i.e. back to August 14, 2009); Count II, only as it relates to the claim for deferred compensation, is dismissed; Count III is dismissed as against defendants Pasqualucci and Yankowski; and Count v. is dismissed. Defendants’ motions to dismiss are otherwise DENIED.”
“Defendant’s Motion to Suppress Evidence (Docket #7) is ALLOWED.”
“Defendant’s Motion for New Trial Pursuant to Rule 30(b) (Third) (Docket #105) is ALLOWED and his conviction is VACATED.”
“Defendant’s Motion to Suppress Evidence and Statements from an Unconstitutional Automobile Stop, Exit Order, and Patfrisk (Docket #8) is ALLOWED.”
“Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (Docket #35) is ALLOWED. This case is hereby DISMISSED.”
“Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject-Matter Jurisdiction (Docket #10) is ALLOWED.”
“Plaintiff’s Motion to Extend Time for Filing Notice of Appeal Nunc Pro Tunc (Docket #12) is DENIED.”
“Defendant City of Boston’s Motion for New Trial and Remittitur Pursuant to Mass. R. Civ. P. 59 (Docket #130), is ALLOWED in part only insofar as the judgment shall be amended to reduce the interest on plaintiff’s award of compensatory damages from $274,579.45 to $205,934.58, but the motion is otherwise DENIED.”
“Defendant City of Boston’s Motion for Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict (Docket #132) is DENIED.”
“Plaintiff’s Motion for Statutory Attorneys’ Fees and Costs (Docket #138) is ALLOWED in part insofar as the judgment shall be amended to include attorneys’ fees of $368,142.03, plus costs of $3,068.53, but the motion is otherwise DENIED.”
“Plaintiff’s Motion for Statutory Interest on Lost Wages (Docket #149) is DENIED.”
“Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Certain Indictments Under Commonwealth v. McCarthy for Lack of Probable Cause to Indict (Docket #15) is DENIED.”
Draft for Judge Krupp with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Krupp, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Krupp's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace