Legal Opinion
Rombola v. Cosindas
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Decided November 7, 1966PublishedCited by 48 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtKirk, J.
The sole question presented by the bill of exceptions of the plaintiff (Rombola) in this action of contract is whether the judge committed error in directing a verdict for the defendant (Cosindas) on the plaintiff’s opening statement to the jury.
We state the substance of the plaintiff’s case, as outlined in the opening statement. By the terms of a written contract with Cosindas, Rombola agreed to train, maintain and race Cosindas’s horses, Margy Sampson and Margy Star, for the period November 8,1962, to December 1,1963. The present action relates only to the horse Margy Sampson. Rombola was…
2Cases cited18 opinions
- John Hetherington & Sons, Ltd. v. William Firth Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1911
- Randall v. Peerless Motor Car Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1912
- Singarella v. City of BostonMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1961
- Air Technology Corp. v. General Electric Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1964
- King Features Syndicate, Inc. v. Cape Cod Broadcasting Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1945
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by48 opinions
- Jet Spray Cooler, Inc. v. CramptonMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1979
- Computer Systems Engineering, Inc. v. Qantel Corporation, Computer Systems Engineering, Inc. v. Qantel CorporationCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1984
- Hendricks & Associates, Inc. v. Daewoo CorporationCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1991
- Brewster Wallcovering Co. v. Blue Mountain Wallcoverings, Inc.Massachusetts Appeals Court · 2007
- National Merchandising Corp. v. LeydenMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1976
43 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.