Legal Opinion

Grossman v. Waltham Chemical Co.

Massachusetts Appeals Court

Decided July 7, 1982PublishedCited by 31 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

*9331. Subsidiary findings of fact by a trial judge “will not be deemed ‘clearly erroneous’ unless the reviewing court on the entire evidence is left with the firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.” New England Canteen Serv., Inc. v. Ashley, 372 Mass. 671, 675 (1977). Our review of the instant record leaves us with no such conviction. The judge made the critical finding that the defendant’s termite manager “inspected the exterior of the barn and noticed small holes in some of the clapboards and carpenter ant sawdust in the rear of the barn.” Apart from evidence concerning the magnitude…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Slaney v. Westwood Auto, Inc.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1975
  2. Purity Supreme, Inc. v. Attorney GeneralMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1980
  3. Danca v. Taunton Savings BankMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1982
  4. New England Canteen Service, Inc. v. AshleyMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1977
  5. Lowell Gas Co. v. Attorney GeneralMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1979

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

3Cited by31 opinions

  1. Pepsi-Cola Metropolitan Bottling Company, Inc. v. Checkers, Inc.Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1985
  2. Duclersaint v. Federal National Mortgage Ass'nMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1998
  3. Bamberg v. Goldman, Sachs & Co.Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · 2014
  4. Bump v. RobbinsMassachusetts Appeals Court · 1987
  5. Urman v. South Boston Savings BankMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1997

26 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