Legal Opinion
Langis v. Danforth
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Decided April 2, 1941PublishedCited by 16 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtDolan, J.
These are two actions of tort. In the first action the minor plaintiff seeks to recover for personal injuries sustained as a result of the alleged negligence of *509the defendant. The second action was brought by the minor’s father for consequential damages. The cases were tried to a jury and at the close of the evidence the judge allowed the motion of the defendant in each case for a directed verdict in his favor. The cases now come before us on the plaintiffs’ exceptions to the allowance of those motions and to the exclusion of certain evidence. The minor plaintiff will be referred to…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Commonwealth v. SturtivantMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1875
- Vigneault v. Dr. Hewson Dental Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1938
- Bouffard v. CanbyMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1935
- Tallon v. SpellmanMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1939
- Adams v. Town of BoltonMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1937
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by16 opinions
- Rubin v. Town of ArlingtonMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1951
- Campbell v. ThorntonMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1975
- Malone v. BianchiMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1945
- Commonwealth v. EllisMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1946
- Womble v. Dubuque Fire & Marine InsuranceMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1941
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.