Legal Opinion

Baudanza v. Comcast of Massachusetts I, Inc.

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Decided September 4, 2009PublishedCited by 9 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtBotsford, J.

When a party accepts an order for addition or additur to a jury’s award of damages issued by a judge pursuant to Mass. R. Civ. R 59 (a), 365 Mass. 827 (1974), may that party thereafter appeal from the order? We conclude that a party who accepts such an order, or an order for remittance or remittitur, may not thereafter bring such an appeal. Because the rule barring the appeal may not have been clear in the past, we consider the substantive arguments that the defendant, who accepted an order for additur in this case, raises in its appeal. Concluding that they lack merit, we affirm the judgment…

2Cases cited37 opinions

  1. Dimick v. SchiedtSupreme Court of the United States · 1935
  2. Commonwealth v. LaniganMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1994
  3. Donovan v. Penn Shipping Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1977
  4. D'Annolfo v. Stoneham Housing AuthorityMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1978
  5. Flood v. Southland Corp.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1993

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

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. Fernandes v. Attleboro Housing AuthorityMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 2014
  2. Downer & Co., LLC v. STI Holding, Inc.Massachusetts Appeals Court · 2010
  3. Dubuque v. Cumberland Farms, Inc.Massachusetts Appeals Court · 2018
  4. Evans v. Lorillard Tobacco Co.Massachusetts Superior Court · 2011
  5. CHARLES SHERMAN NEAL v. CITY OF BOSTONMassachusetts Superior Court · 2022

4 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