Legal Opinion

Freeman v. Wood

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Decided February 8, 1980No. 10 Under the text of rule 59 (a), the judge suggests an addition of such amount as he “adjudges reasonable.” The same approach applies on remittitur, as the judge is to suggest remittal of so much as he “adjudges is excessive.” See D’Annolfo v. Stoneham Hous. Auth., 375 Mass. 650, 660-662 (1978); Raunela v. Hertz Corp., 361 Mass. 341, 345-346 (1972)PublishedCited by 35 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtKaplan, J.

This appeal attacks the “additur” procedure, which appears in Mass. R. Civ. P. 59 (a), 365 Mass. 827 (1974), as a counterpart of the “remittitur” procedure, 1 on the ground that it conflicts with art. 15 of our Declaration of Rights which guarantees trial by jury of civil causes. 2

In an action in Superior Court, county of Worcester, for personal injuries resulting from a collision of vehicles on a public highway, the plaintiff Freeman won a verdict of $10,000 against the defendant Wood upon the jury’s special verdict finding in answers to questions that the defendant was wholly responsible…

Also in this document: Concurring in part, dissenting in part.

2Cases cited28 opinions

Williams v. FloridaSupreme Court of the United States · 1970
Dimick v. SchiedtSupreme Court of the United States · 1935
Apodaca v. OregonSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
Ex Parte PetersonSupreme Court of the United States · 1920
Slocum v. New York Life InsuranceSupreme Court of the United States · 1913

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

3Cited by35 opinions

Service Publications, Inc. v. GovermanMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1986
Griffin v. General Motors Corp.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1980
Sarvis v. Boston Safe Deposit & Trust Co.Massachusetts Appeals Court · 1999
Powers v. H.B. Smith Co.Massachusetts Appeals Court · 1997
Acushnet Federal Credit Union v. RoderickMassachusetts Appeals Court · 1988

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