Legal Opinion

Mendoza v. B.L.H. Electronics

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Decided November 21, 1988PublishedCited by 16 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtLynch, J.

This action arose from injuries sustained by Lucy Mendoza said to be negligently caused by her employer, B.L.H. Electronics (B.L.H.). Lucy’s husband, Joseph, claimed damages for loss of consortium individually and on behalf of their three minor children. Ivan Mendoza, Joseph’s natural son and Lucy’s unadopted stepson, who was eighteen years old at the time of Lucy’s injury, also sought loss of consortium damages. Prior to trial, the judge granted B.L.H.’s motion in limine which sought to exclude any evidence on Ivan’s behalf, ruling that Ivan could not maintain his action because he was only…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Ferriter v. Daniel O'Connell's Sons, Inc.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1980
  2. Diaz v. Eli Lilly & Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1973
  3. Elden v. SheldonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1988
  4. Morgan v. LalumiereMassachusetts Appeals Court · 1986
  5. Butcher v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1983

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

3Cited by16 opinions

  1. Bobick v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 2003
  2. Tauriac v. Polaroid CorporationDistrict Court, D. Massachusetts · 1989
  3. Pinheiro v. Medical Malpractice Joint Underwriting Ass'nMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1989
  4. Angelini v. OMD Corp.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1991
  5. Higgins v. Intex Recreation Corp.Court of Appeals of Washington · 2004

11 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