Legal Opinion

Britt v. Rosenberg

Massachusetts Appeals Court

Decided June 7, 1996No. 95-P-1236PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtBrown, J.

The jurisprudence of the Commonwealth certainly would not be enhanced by tracing in detail this tortured tale of a debtor who used every scheme imaginable (though none novel) to avoid paying the amount due on a promissory note. It sets the stage sufficiently to recount that the plaintiff borrower sued the lender two weeks before the note became due, claiming that he had been coerced into *553signing it.1 Then, the disingenuous, dilatory, and obfuscatory maneuvers began. Today we attempt to drive a stake through the heart of this caricature of judicial process. Although we need not dwell at length…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Universal Oil Products Co. v. Root Refining Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1946
  2. Hodge v. KlugMassachusetts Appeals Court · 1992
  3. Wilkinson v. GuarinoMassachusetts Appeals Court · 1985
  4. Piccicuto v. DwyerMassachusetts Appeals Court · 1992
  5. Miaskiewicz v. CommonwealthMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1980

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. Hernandez v. BranciforteMassachusetts Appeals Court · 2002
  2. Weston Forest & Trail Ass'n v. FishmanMassachusetts Appeals Court · 2006
  3. Giuliano v. VaccaMassachusetts District Court, Appellate Division · 2004
  4. Ramsdell v. DoliberMassachusetts Appeals Court · 2003
  5. C & I Steel, LLC v. Travelers Casualty & Surety Co. of AmericaMassachusetts Appeals Court · 2007

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API