LaRose v. Campbell
Massachusetts Appeals Court
1Opinion of the Court
This case was tried before a master, who filed a report and a supplemental report. These were adopted, and judgment was entered for the defendants. The plaintiffs have appealed. There was no error. 1. The order of recommittal for additional findings was within the discretion of the judge who entered it (see the last sentence of Mass.R.Civ.P. 53 [e] [2], as amended, 367 Mass. 917 [1975]), and may well have been mandatory because of the incompleteness of the master’s original findings in the areas to which the order was addressed (compare Ullian v. Cullen, 3 Mass. App. Ct. 159, 162-165 [1975]).…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Peters v. WallachMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1975
- Stevens v. Rockport Granite Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1914
- Morin v. ClarkMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1937
- Michelson v. AronsonMassachusetts Appeals Court · 1976
- Deyo v. Athol Housing AuthorityMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1957
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Perkins v. RichMassachusetts Appeals Court · 1981
- Provincetown Chamber of Commerce, Inc. v. GraceMassachusetts Appeals Court · 1982
- O'DAY v. TheranMassachusetts Appeals Court · 1979