Legal Opinion

Hill v. Bookbinder

Massachusetts Appeals Court

Decided June 10, 1976PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

1. We do not consider whether there was error in overruling the defendant’s demurrer or in denying his motion to dismiss because the defendant failed to comply with the requirement of the last sentence of Rule 72 of the Superior Court, as amended effective October 31, 1969. See also Rule 2 of the Superior Court (1954); Sheinkopf v. Eskin, 367 Mass. 573, 575-576 (1975). 2. It was not error to enter an order of reference to an auditor at a time when the plaintiff had been conditionally nonsuited under the fifth paragraph of Rule 36 of the Superior Court (1954) for failure to answer the…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Bartley v. PhillipsMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1944
  2. Hartmann v. Boston Herald-Traveler Corp.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1948
  3. Lolos v. BerlinMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1958
  4. Arrow Paper Corp. v. Boylston Foods, Inc.Massachusetts Appeals Court · 1973
  5. Sheinkopf v. EskinMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1975

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Ely Bros. Construction Corp. v. WoloshchukMassachusetts District Court, Appellate Division · 1981
  2. Omartian v. Investors Mortgage InsuranceMassachusetts District Court, Appellate Division · 1991
  3. Salamon v. Crane Co.Massachusetts District Court, Appellate Division · 1982
  4. Sweetser v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co.Massachusetts District Court, Appellate Division · 1990

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

Powered by the Exa API