Legal Opinion

Domurad v. Hill

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Decided January 12, 1993Published

1Opinion of the Court

We granted the defendant’s application for further appellate review. The Appeals Court affirmed the judgment in an unpublished memorandum and order pursuant to Appeals Court Rule 1:28. 32 Mass. App. Ct. 1115 (1992).

The defendant’s motion to dismiss was correctly denied. The defendant did not follow the rule. Mass. R. Civ. P. 25 (a) (1), 365 Mass. 771 (1974). We have said that the burden is on the decedent’s representative to comply with the rule. See Federal Ins. Co. v. Ronan, 407 Mass. 921 (1990).

The evidence viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff was sufficient. In discussing…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Berardi v. MenicksMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1960
  2. Vigneault v. Dr. Hewson Dental Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1938
  3. Borysewicz v. DineenMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1939
  4. Federal Insurance v. RonanMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1990

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

Powered by the Exa API