Legal Opinion

Burlingame v. Fors

Massachusetts District Court, Appellate Division

Decided November 3, 1993PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtLoConto, J.

The appellant seeks review of the trial judge’s denial of his request to remove a case pursuant to G.L.c. 231, §104. We affirm the decision of the trial judge and dismiss the petition.

The facts necessary to resolve the issues are as follows. On October 26,1992, judgement entered for the plaintiff after trial before a justice in the Spencer District Court. On November 3,1992, the defendant, aggrieved of the decision, filed a motion entitled, a“MotionFor Reconsideration” in accordance with Dist/Mun. Cts. R Civ. P., Rule 59(e). This motion was denied on February 1,1993. On February 5,1993, the…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Orasz v. Colonial Tavern, Inc.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1974
  2. Coen Marine Equipment, Inc. v. KurkerMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1984
  3. Sroczynski v. Shell Oil Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1985
  4. Davis v. BennettMassachusetts District Court, Appellate Division · 1982

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Crystal Construction Corp. v. HartiganMassachusetts District Court, Appellate Division · 2000
  2. Caruso v. Haverhill Golf & Country Club, Inc.Massachusetts District Court, Appellate Division · 2000

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API