Legal Opinion

Howe v. Palmer

Massachusetts Appeals Court

Decided October 31, 2011No. 10-P-295PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtTrainor, J.

The defendants, Ronald F. Palmer and Jeanette M. Palmer (collectively, Palmers), appeal from a jury verdict finding that a 2000 deed from the plaintiff, Virgil D. Howe, to the Palmers was the product of undue influence and that the Palmers had intentionally inflicted emotional distress on Howe. In answer to special questions, the jury found that Howe did not know *737nor should he reasonably have known prior to March 1, 2003, that he had been harmed (for purposes of applying the discovery rule and the statute of limitations) and that he did not unreasonably delay bringing suit so as to prejudice…

2Cases cited41 opinions

  1. Agis v. Howard Johnson Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1976
  2. Riley v. PresnellMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1991
  3. Bowen v. Eli Lilly & Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1990
  4. Tetrault v. MahoneyMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1997
  5. Neill v. BrackettMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1920

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

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Caraveo v. PerezNevada Supreme Court · 2013
  2. Armstrong v. Wal-Mart Stores East, L.P.Massachusetts District Court, Appellate Division · 2014
  3. D'Amico v. MacMillanMassachusetts Superior Court · 2013
  4. In re Estate of BethuremNevada Supreme Court · 2013
  5. Korngold v. DRB Systems, LLCDistrict Court, D. Massachusetts · 2023

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

Powered by the Exa API