Legal Opinion

Griffith v. New England Telephone & Telegraph Co.

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Decided May 16, 1995PublishedCited by 18 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtLynch, J.

The plaintiffs’ action under G. L. c. 21E (1992 ed.), the Massachusetts Oil and Hazardous Material Release Prevention Act, against the defendant was previously before us. See Griffith v. New England Tel. & Tel. Co., 414 Mass. 824, 825-827 (1993) (Griffith I). There a judge in the Superior Court had held that the defendant was the “operator of *366... a site from or at which there is or has been a release . . . of oil or hazardous material,” and ordered the defendant to pay the plaintiffs $461,266 for cleanup costs. See G. L. c. 2IE, § 5 (a) (1). The Appeals Court affirmed. Griffith v. New England…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Zezuski v. Jenny Manufacturing Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1973
  2. Griffith v. New England Telephone & Telegraph Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1993
  3. Providence & Worcester Railroad v. Chevron U.S.A. Inc.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1993
  4. LaCouture v. RenaudMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1949
  5. Marenghi v. Mobil Oil Corp.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1993

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

3Cited by18 opinions

  1. In Re Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether Products Liability LitigationDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 2005
  2. Gerst v. MarshallSupreme Court of Iowa · 1996
  3. Scott v. NG US 1, Inc.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 2008
  4. Martignetti v. Haigh-Farr, Inc.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1997
  5. Commonwealth v. LiebenowMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 2014

13 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