Case law

Autor v. Auto Imports, Inc.

29 Mass. App. Dec. 13 · Massachusetts District Court, Appellate Division · Jul 10, 1964

The purchaser, qualified to testify as to car values, testified that the fair market value of the car on November 7, 1961 was $1,351.00 and that it was the same value on March 24, 1962. … Had the judge ruled that the evidence did not warrant a finding for plaintiff, he would have been clearly wrong. His granting of these requests indicates that he understood this.

Engel v. Thompson

13 Mass. App. Dec. 6 · Massachusetts District Court, Appellate Division · Jul 1, 1957

Clearly, it follows that the title obtained from a sale of land by force of the lien for water rates attached thereto, would be an independent title, and *12 not one derived from and supported by the title of the owner of … The incumbrance in question was not created, acquired or derived "by, through or under” the defendants, but was created by the action of public authorities in the performance of their duty under well established principles

Soares v. Law Offices of Liu & Associates

2011 Mass. App. Div. 96 · Massachusetts District Court, Appellate Division · May 4, 2011

Liu (“Liu”) established his law firm in 1987 and practiced exclusively in immigration. He maintains law offices in Newark, New Jersey, New York City, and Cambridge, Massachusetts. … In an attorney-client relationship, the attorney has a professional duty not to advance a claim that cannot as a matter of clearly stated law be achieved.

Heuler Tile Co. v. Speros

1983 Mass. App. Div. 194 · Massachusetts District Court, Appellate Division · Jun 29, 1983

A qualified expert witness is not required to actually observe the property in question to express an opinion as to *196 the fair value of improvements thereon. Boston Gas Co. v. … Evidence of the fair value of the work and materials to the defendants was clearly material on the claims in quantum meruit. Heyeck Building & Realty Co., Inc. v.

Horton v. Marston

34 Mass. App. Dec. 132 · Massachusetts District Court, Appellate Division · Jul 1, 1966

“It is established firmly as the law of Massachusetts that in the ordinary letting of real estate there is no implied undertaking by the lessor that the premises are fit for occupancy, and there is no liability on the lessor … The law is clearly and forcibly stated with sufficient citation of authority in Stumpf v. Leland, 242 Mass. 168 .” There is an exception to that principle of law.

Rogers & Hubbard Co. v. Beszko

6 Mass. App. Div. 245 · Massachusetts District Court, Appellate Division · Jun 16, 1941

grievances claimed in the report are those claimed by the plaintiff as follows: “Because the court denied its requested rulings numbered 6, 7 8, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 and 31, qualified … The fact that the trustee had actual, as well as constructive, notice of the mortgage is clearly found.

Rath v. Commonwealth

1984 Mass. App. Div. 255 · Massachusetts District Court, Appellate Division · Dec 12, 1984

Our decisions have clearly established that the provisions of G.L. c. 258A are to be strictly construed in terms of victim entitlement [Coon v. Commonwealth, 1978 Mass. App. Dec. 63 ; Landrum v. Commonwealth, 1981 Mass. … The evidence set forth in the Report clearly supports that finding.

Romicon, Inc. v. L & J of New England, Inc.

1981 Mass. App. Div. 164 · Massachusetts District Court, Appellate Division · Jul 31, 1981

The defendant advised the plaintiff that in order for the defendant to qualify for an investment tax credit, its new electrostat machine of which the plaintiffs system was an integral part had to be in operation prior to … The defendant’s purchase order clearly states “Detailed description included in Quotation #8740 on August 15, 1977.”

Truck Center Leasing, Inc. v. Fiumara

1992 Mass. App. Div. 16 · Massachusetts District Court, Appellate Division · Feb 5, 1992

It is established that plaintiff never occupied the premises. On October 16,1987, more than half-way into that first month, Bernard P. … Even the provision for a personal guaranty, since not raised in plaintiffs bare-boned letter of offer, might have qualified as neither “astonishing nor grasping.”

Samuel Nichols, Inc. v. Beldekas

1988 Mass. App. Div. 105 · Massachusetts District Court, Appellate Division · Jul 7, 1988

If the Court believes the testimony of the witness, Dino Beldekas to the affect that he clearly explained to Michael Vallas and Nicholas Vallas and their attorney at their attorney’s office on the occasion when the Agreement … Moreover, the charge sought to be assessed against the buyer, Beldekas, is further qualified by the above-quoted typed sentence added to the printed form, namely that “the commission shall be otherwise paid by the seller.

Cocchi v. Morais Concrete Service, Inc.

2015 Mass. App. Div. 49 · Massachusetts District Court, Appellate Division · Mar 17, 2015

Rosen, 235 Mass. 244, 249 (1920). 4 However, a subsequent promise given in exchange for the other party’s prior performance does not qualify as consideration. See Henry W. Savage, Inc. v. … Such findings must be ‘clearly erroneous’ and regard must be given ‘to the opportunity of the trial court to judge the credibility of the witnesses.’ Mass. R. Civ. P., Rule 52(c).

Reznik v. Yelton

2011 Mass. App. Div. 1 · Massachusetts District Court, Appellate Division · Jan 14, 2011

The letter consisted of Reznik’s unilateral declaration that the parties’ joint stipulation of dismissal was null and void, and his clearly redundant characterizations of the judge’s presettlement rulings as a “usurpation … Such a statement of “settler’s remorse” does not qualify as a basis for Rule 60(6) (6) relief from a stipulated judgment. Moreover, a Rule 60(b) motion is not a substitute for an appeal. Smith v. Arbella Mut. Ins.

Lacoille v. Dulong

1984 Mass. App. Div. 270 · Massachusetts District Court, Appellate Division · Dec 20, 1984

However, the majority of courts agree that the “as is” clause alone does not confer a general immunity from liability for fraud. See, e.g., Lingsch v. Savage, 213 Cal. App. 729 , 29 Cal. Rptr. 201 § 8 ALR 3d 537 (1963). … Such a result creates the dilemma of dual agency, for the broker and/or cooperating broker, who clearly have fiduciary duties to the seller, is held to have fiduciary obligations to the buyer as well.

National House Furniture Co. v. Anderson

8 Mass. App. Div. 91 · Massachusetts District Court, Appellate Division · Mar 2, 1943

The error relied upon by the defendant consists of the overruling of his demurrer, the denial of nine rulings requested by him, the qualified denial of five others, the granting of six rulings requested by the plaintiff and … This principle is first clearly stated in Dwight v.