Legal Opinion
Commonwealth v. Robinson
Massachusetts Appeals Court
Decided April 30, 1979PublishedCited by 7 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtKeville, J.
The defendant Robinson was tried and convicted by a jury under the provisions of G. L. c. 266, § 30 (4), 1 of obtaining by false pretenses with intent to defraud "the trade secret concerning 'Vapormid Process’, joint property of Energy Management, Inc. of Newton, Massachusetts, and, Vapor Pak, Inc., of Exeter, New Hampshire.” He appeals under G. L. c. 278, §§ 33A-33G. Robinson was represented by counsel at trial but elected on appeal to appear pro se.
Our distillation of Robinson’s assignment of errors supports the Commonwealth’s contention that the sole question conceivably presented for…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Jet Spray Cooler, Inc. v. CramptonMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1972
- J. T. Healy & Son, Inc. v. James A. Murphy & Son, Inc.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1970
- Jet Spray Cooler, Inc. v. CramptonMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1979
- Commonwealth v. MangulaMassachusetts Appeals Court · 1975
- Commonwealth v. VellucciMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1933
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- Dynamics Research Corp. v. Analytic Sciences Corp.Massachusetts Appeals Court · 1980
- Trent Partners & Associates, Inc. v. Digital Equipment Corp.District Court, D. Massachusetts · 1999
- Chomerics, Inc. v. EhrreichMassachusetts Appeals Court · 1981
- Harvard Apparatus, Inc. v. CowenDistrict Court, D. Massachusetts · 2001
- Princess House, Inc. v. LindseyDistrict Court, W.D. Missouri · 1994
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.