Legal Opinion

DeCosta v. Ye Craftsman Studio Inc.

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Decided March 1, 1932PublishedCited by 15 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtRugg, C.J.

The plaintiff, a minor, seeks to recover in this action of tort compensation for personal injuries received on October 28, 1929, as a result of being struck by an automobile owned by the defendant, insured by it under the compulsory motor vehicle insurance law, and operated by its agent. The writ is dated on January 26, 1931.

*3161. The first point for decision is whether the action was seasonably brought. The governing statutory provisions are G. L. c. 260, §§ 4, 7, 19. Said § 4 was amended by St. 1921, c. 319, § 1, St. 1925, c. 346, § 10, and St. 1929, c. 29, § 1 (see now St. 1931, c. 458, § 5),…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Opinion of the Justices to the Senate & the House of RepresentativesMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1925
  2. McLearn v. HillMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1931
  3. Bickford v. FurberMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1930
  4. Wescott v. Henshaw Motor Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1931
  5. Castaline v. SwardlickMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1928

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

3Cited by15 opinions

  1. Gaudette v. WebbMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1972
  2. Registrar of Motor Vehicles v. Board of Appeal on Motor Vehicle Liability Policies & BondsMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1981
  3. O'Roak v. Lloyds Casualty Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1934
  4. Brown v. Great American Indemnity Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1937
  5. Boudreau v. Maryland Casualty Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1934

10 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