Legal Opinion

Dearden v. Hey

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Decided December 29, 1939PublishedCited by 45 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtCox, J.

The plaintiff brought this action of tort in the District Court to recover for his personal injuries, alleged to have been caused by the negligence of the defendant resulting in an automobile collision on July 10, 1937. The defendant’s answer, by amendment, contains a plea of res judicata. It was agreed that the negligence of the defend*660ant had been established in a prior suit between the same parties for property damage resulting from the same automobile collision, and that execution “issuing therefrom had been satisfied in full.” The trial judge found for the defendant. The plaintiff’s…

2Cases cited18 opinions

  1. McLearn v. HillMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1931
  2. Bliss v. New York Central & Hudson River RailroadMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1894
  3. Doran v. CohenMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1888
  4. Bethlehem Fabricators, Inc. v. H. D. Watts Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1934
  5. Reilly v. . Sicilian Asphalt Paving Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1902

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

3Cited by45 opinions

  1. Cousineau v. LarameeMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1983
  2. Parrell v. KeenanMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1983
  3. General Exchange Insurance v. DriscollMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1944
  4. Vasu v. Kohlers, Inc.Ohio Supreme Court · 1945
  5. Reardon v. AllenNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1965

40 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