Legal Opinion
Wishnewsky v. Town of Saugus
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Decided January 4, 1950PublishedCited by 31 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtRonan, J.
The first action is in tort by the owner of certain premises located in the defendant town to recover for damage which, he alleged, was caused in the fall of 1945 and the summer of 1946 by the action of the town in collecting surface water from its highways into a drain and discharging the water from this drain in such quantities into a natural watercourse or brook which bounded the plaintiff’s land that it caused the brook to overflow and flood the land. Gratiano, the plaintiff in the second action, died after the commencement of the action, and his ad-ministratrix has been admitted to…
2Cases cited36 opinions
- Old Dominion Copper Mining & Smelting Co. v. BigelowMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1909
- Burlen v. ShannonMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1868
- Foye v. PatchMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1882
- Sandler v. SilkMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1935
- Eastman Marble Co. v. Vermont Marble Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1920
31 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by31 opinions
- Anderson v. Phoenix Investment Counsel of Boston, Inc.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1982
- Pinshaw v. Metropolitan District CommissionMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1988
- Willett v. WebsterMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1958
- Jacques v. Pioneer Plastics, Inc.Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1996
- Drain v. Brookline Savings BankMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1951
26 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.