Legal Opinion

Dennis v. Austin

Massachusetts Appeals Court

Decided November 26, 1976PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

1. We perceive no abuse of discretion (Leonard v. Strong, 2 Mass. App. Ct. 467, 469 [1974]) in the judge’s denial of the defendant’s motion for a continuance, based on the alleged unavailability of the defendant to testify in her own behalf. The case had been fully tried to an auditor (who had found for the plaintiffs), the defendant lived in New Hampshire, the defendant’s counsel had had at least six days’ notice of a special assignment for trial, but the motion was not filed or presented until the morning of trial. The motion itself has not been reproduced in the appendix to the defendant’s…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Lane v. EpinardMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1945
  2. Federal National Bank v. O'KeefeMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1929
  3. Leonard v. StrongMassachusetts Appeals Court · 1974

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Kunen v. First Agricultural National BankMassachusetts Appeals Court · 1978
  2. Beninati v. BeninatiMassachusetts Appeals Court · 1984

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

Powered by the Exa API