Britt v. Rosenberg
Massachusetts Appeals Court
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
- Universal Oil Products Co. v. Root Refining Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1946
- Hodge v. KlugMassachusetts Appeals Court · 1992
- Wilkinson v. GuarinoMassachusetts Appeals Court · 1985
- Piccicuto v. DwyerMassachusetts Appeals Court · 1992
- Miaskiewicz v. CommonwealthMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1980
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- Hernandez v. BranciforteMassachusetts Appeals Court · 2002
- Weston Forest & Trail Ass'n v. FishmanMassachusetts Appeals Court · 2006
- Giuliano v. VaccaMassachusetts District Court, Appellate Division · 2004
- Ramsdell v. DoliberMassachusetts Appeals Court · 2003
- C & I Steel, LLC v. Travelers Casualty & Surety Co. of AmericaMassachusetts Appeals Court · 2007
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.