Legal Opinion

Haddad v. Pulaski

Massachusetts Appeals Court

Decided June 15, 1994No. 92-P-1689PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

The plaintiff brought this contract action in a District Court. Although the amount claimed was less than $25,000, the action might have been brought in the Superior Court subject to transfer to the District Court under G. L. c. 231, § 102C. See G. L. c. 218, § 19; U.S. Funding, Inc. of America v. Bank of Boston Corp., 28 Mass. App. Ct. 404, 407 (1990); Perlin & Connors, Handbook of Civil Procedure in the Massachusetts District Court § 1.2 (2d ed. 1990). Hence the plaintiff, by the terms of G. L. c. 231, § 103, as amended through St. 1987, c. 251, § 1, waived his right to trial by jury in the…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. U.S. Funding, Inc. of America v. Bank of Boston Corp.Massachusetts Appeals Court · 1990
  2. Tolson v. ShemligianMassachusetts Appeals Court · 1987

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Sperounes v. FareseMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 2007
  2. Beaulieu v. BellMassachusetts Appeals Court · 1996
  3. Chapian v. Car Wash Systems, Inc.Massachusetts District Court, Appellate Division · 1996
  4. Noonan v. Thermo Consulting Engineers, Inc.Massachusetts Appeals Court · 1996
  5. Grant v. DibitettoMassachusetts District Court, Appellate Division · 1996

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

Powered by the Exa API