Legal Opinion
Mucha v. Northeastern Crushed Stone Co.
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Decided December 31, 1940PublishedCited by 41 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtCox, J.
This is an action of tort to recover for injuries alleged to have been received by the plaintiff, an employee of the defendant, while at work, by reason of the alleged defective condition of the appliances, tools and equipment that were furnished by the defendant. The motion of the defendant for a directed verdict, seasonably filed, was denied subject to the defendant’s exception, but under leave reserved (G. L. |]Ter. Ed.] c. 231, § 120) the motion for entry of “judgment ... is [.sic] accordance with leave reserved” was allowed. It is assumed that the entry was of a verdict in accordance…
2Cases cited25 opinions
- Walker v. Benz Kid Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1932
- Roscigno v. Colonial Beacon Oil Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1936
- Childs v. American Express Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1908
- Gates v. Boston & Maine RailroadMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1926
- Doherty v. BoothMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1909
20 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by41 opinions
- LeBlanc v. Atlantic Building & Supply Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1949
- Ruffin v. Coca Cola Bottling Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1942
- Howe v. City of BostonMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1942
- Howard v. Lowell Coca-Cola Bottling Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1948
- Allan v. Essanee, Inc.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1941
36 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.