Legal Opinion

Urman v. South Boston Savings Bank

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Decided January 17, 1997PublishedCited by 37 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtGreaney, J.

The plaintiffs, Pete Urman and Victoria Ur-man, filed a complaint in the Superior Court alleging that, when they purchased a foreclosed condominium unit from the defendant, South Boston Savings Bank (bank), it failed to disclose to them that a toxic waste contamination problem had existed on a nearby property. The plaintiffs claimed that the bank’s conduct constituted fraud and deceit, a violation of G. L. c. 93A, and the negligent infliction of emotional distress, which entitled them to the equitable remedies of rescission and restitution and the legal remedy of damages. A judge in the…

2Cases cited17 opinions

  1. Payton v. Abbott LabsMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1982
  2. Heller v. Silverbranch Construction Corp.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1978
  3. Nei v. BurleyMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1983
  4. Kannavos v. AnninoMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1969
  5. Sheehy v. Lipton Industries, Inc.Massachusetts Appeals Court · 1987

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

3Cited by37 opinions

  1. Aspinall v. Philip Morris Companies, Inc.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 2004
  2. Majca v. BeekilIllinois Supreme Court · 1998
  3. In re Ford Motor Co. Vehicle Paint LitigationDistrict Court, E.D. Louisiana · 1998
  4. Frappier v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc.Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · 2011
  5. Doe v. Emerson CollegeDistrict Court, D. Massachusetts · 2015

32 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