Legal Opinion

Intriligator v. Goldberg

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Decided February 1, 1938PublishedCited by 12 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtCox, J.

The plaintiff was a passenger for hire in a taxicab, owned and operated by the defendant who was a common carrier. She was seated on the rear seat. There were five other passengers. When the plaintiff entered the cab, in Dorchester, she told the defendant that she wished to be let off at the corner of Washington and Essex streets in Boston. At Lagrange Street, which is near Essex Street, *334two passengers left the cab, opening and closing the door for themselves, the defendant remaining behind the wheel. At this stop the plaintiff again told the defendant that she was to get off at Washington…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Steverman v. Boston Elevated Railway Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1910
  2. Camp v. SpringMichigan Supreme Court · 1928
  3. Nichols v. Lynn & Boston RailroadMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1897
  4. Isenberg v. New York, New Haven, & Hartford RailroadMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1915
  5. Hines v. Boston Elevated Railway Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1908

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

3Cited by12 opinions

  1. Monastero v. Los Angeles Transit Co.California Court of Appeal · 1955
  2. Rogers v. Cambridge Taxi Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1945
  3. Fournier v. Central Taxi Cab, Inc.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1954
  4. A & A Cab Operating Co. v. DrakeSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1948
  5. Lydon v. Warehouse 13, Inc.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1957

7 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