Legal Opinion

Franco v. Kersten

Massachusetts District Court, Appellate Division

Decided February 28, 2011PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Opinion of the CourtMacLeod, J.

This is a Dist./Mun. Cts. R. A. D. A. 8A expedited appeal by the defendant of the denial of her motion to alter or amend judgment to vacate an assessment of $430.50 in costs for the plaintiff. The defendant’s sole contention is that the plaintiff was not entitled to costs under G.L.c. 261, §1 and Mass. R. Civ. R, Rule 54(d),1 because she was not the “prevailing party” in this action. We disagree.

The record indicates that the plaintiff, Theresa Franco, filed this tort action after sustaining injuries as a pedestrian when she was struck by a vehicle negligently operated by the defendant, Mary…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Hannon v. Original Gunite Aquatech Pools, Inc.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1982
  2. Bardon Trimount, Inc. v. GuyottMassachusetts Appeals Court · 2000
  3. Pella Windows, Inc. v. BurmanMassachusetts District Court, Appellate Division · 2009

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. Lazo v. DaltonMassachusetts District Court, Appellate Division · 2012

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API