Legal Opinion
Pierce v. Clark
Massachusetts Appeals Court
Decided July 26, 2006No. 05-P-1376PublishedCited by 18 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
The issues raised on cross appeal are whether the trial judge erred in determining that (1) Clark committed a breach of the parties’ contract; and (2) the Pierces should not be awarded damages in addition to specific performance. Also at issue is whether the Pierces should be awarded attorney’s fees for this appeal.
1. Standard of review. In cases heard by a judge without a jury, “[f]indings of fact shall not be set aside unless clearly erroneous.” Mass.R.Civ.P. 52(a), as amended, 423 Mass. 1402 (1996). See Kendall v. Selvaggio, 413 Mass. 619, 620 (1992). “A finding is ‘clearly erroneous’ when…
2Cases cited19 opinions
- United States v. United States Gypsum Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1948
- J. A. Sullivan Corp. v. CommonwealthMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1986
- Kendall v. SelvaggioMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1992
- Lafayette Place Associates v. Boston Redevelopment AuthorityMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1998
- VMark Software, Inc. v. EMC Corp.Massachusetts Appeals Court · 1994
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by18 opinions
- Salvas v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 2008
- Young v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · 2016
- Coviello v. RichardsonMassachusetts Appeals Court · 2010
- Wendt v. BarnumMassachusetts District Court, Appellate Division · 2007
- McQueen v. True Partners Consulting, LLCMassachusetts Superior Court · 2011
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.