Legal Opinion

Rowe v. Rowe

Massachusetts Appeals Court

Decided June 29, 1979PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

1. Two of the arguments now urged upon us (concerning the admission of certain parol evidence and the failure to give credit for legal fees expended by the defendant) have no basis in the defendant’s objections to the master’s report which were filed in Superior Court. Since those issues were not presented to the trial judge we shall not consider them now in reviewing his actions. Artco, Inc. v. DiFruscia, 5 Mass. App. Ct. 513, 516 (1977).

2. The defendant’s objections to the master’s report numbered 1, 5, 6, and 7 turn on evidence not reported, and, in the absence of compliance with the…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Minot v. MinotMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1946
  2. Michelson v. AronsonMassachusetts Appeals Court · 1976
  3. Artco, Inc. v. DiFrusciaMassachusetts Appeals Court · 1977
  4. H. Piken & Co., Inc. v. Planet Constr. Corp.Massachusetts Appeals Court · 1975
  5. Nychis v. FieldsMassachusetts Appeals Court · 1979

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

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Drury v. AbdallahMassachusetts Appeals Court · 1980
  2. Builders Iron Works, Inc. v. CommonwealthMassachusetts Appeals Court · 1980

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API