Legal Opinion
Brunelle v. Blaise
Massachusetts Superior Court
Decided November 29, 2004No. 200400920PublishedCited by 2 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Agnes, A.J.
I.INTRODUCTION
In this civil action, the plaintiff Daniel Bruneile (“plaintiff’) seeks damages for personal injuries allegedly caused as a result of the dental negligence of defendant Richard Blaise (“defendant”). The question before the court is whether or not it was appropriate for this court to allow the plaintiffs motion to extend time in which to perfect service. The essential facts are not in dispute.
II. BACKGROUND
The plaintiffs complaint was filed on May 12, 2004. Under Mass.R.Civ.P. 4(j), service of the summons and complaint on the defendant must be made within 90 days of…
2Cases cited26 opinions
- Pioneer Investment Services Co. v. Brunswick Associates Ltd. PartnershipSupreme Court of the United States · 1993
- David Petrucelli Tracy A. Petrucelli, Husband and Wife v. Bohringer and Ratzinger, Gmbh Ausdereitungsanlagen Jake Diel Construction MacHine Inc. Teco Electric and MacHine Company, Ltd. v. Excel Recycling & Manufacturing, Inc., Third-Party David Petrucelli and Tracy A. PetrucelliCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1995
- MCI Telecommunications Corporation v. Teleconcepts, Incorporated, Defendant/third-Party v. Bell of Pennsylvania, Third-Party Teleconcepts, IncorporatedCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1995
- Maldonado-Denis v. Castillo-RodriguezCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1994
- Laffit Pincay, Jr. Christopher J. McCarron v. Vincent S. Andrews Robert Andrews Vincent Andrews Management Corp.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2004
21 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- Jaroszuk v. City of WorcesterMassachusetts Superior Court · 2005
- Union Products Inc. v. Warner 7 Stackpole, L.L.P.Massachusetts Superior Court · 2004