Legal Opinion
Richard D. Kimball Co. v. City of Medford
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Decided April 28, 1960PublishedCited by 48 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtSpalding, J.
These are two actions of contract, which were heard together on agreed facts. In one, the plaintiff Tiffany, an architect, seeks to recover for services rendered to the school committee (committee) of the city of Medford (city); in the other, the plaintiff Richard D. Kimball Co. (Kimball) seeks to recover for engineering services rendered to the committee.
The city has one of the standard forms of charter (Plan E) contained in G. L. c. 43. See §§ 1-45, 93. In November, 1954, the committee voted to add $3,000 to its 1955 budget to engage a consulting architect “for the purpose of drawing up…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Leonard v. School Committee of the City of SpringfieldMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1922
- Howland v. StoweMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1935
- Ring v. City of WoburnMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1942
- Davis v. School CommitteeMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1940
- Eastern Massachusetts Street Railway Co. v. Mayor of Fall RiverMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1941
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by48 opinions
- Quintin Vespa Co. Inc. v. Construction Service Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1962
- United States Leasing Corp. v. City of ChicopeeMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1988
- Massachusetts General Hospital v. City of RevereMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1982
- Park Drive Towing, Inc. v. City of RevereMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 2004
- Urban Transport, Inc. v. Mayor of BostonMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1977
43 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.