Legal Opinion

Eagan v. Marr Scaffolding Co.

Massachusetts Appeals Court

Decided December 7, 1982PublishedCited by 13 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

(1) It was within the discretion of the trial judge to permit substitute expert witnesses to testify on the plaintiff’s behalf even though supplementation of interrogatories required by Mass.R.Civ.P. 26(e)(1), 365 Mass. 776 (1974), did not occur until shortly before and during trial, where defendant long had notice of the substance of the testimony expected, where defendant had an opportunity to — and did — depose each witness before testimony was presented, and where no bad faith was shown on the part of the plaintiff. See 8 Wright & Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 2050 (1970). See…

2Cases cited16 opinions

  1. John J. Demarines and Doris A. Demarines, Husband and Wife v. Klm Royal Dutch AirlinesCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1978
  2. Uloth v. City Tank Corp.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1978
  3. Corley v. BP Oil Corp.District of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1979
  4. Bernier v. Boston Edison Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1980
  5. Commonwealth v. CapalboMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1941

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

3Cited by13 opinions

  1. Solimene v. B. GRAUEL & CO., KGMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1987
  2. Beaupre v. Cliff Smith & AssociatesMassachusetts Appeals Court · 2000
  3. Letch v. DanielsMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1987
  4. Cassano v. GogosMassachusetts Appeals Court · 1985
  5. Shaw v. Rodman Ford Truck Center, Inc.Massachusetts Appeals Court · 1985

8 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