Legal Opinion

Cullinan v. Tetrault

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine

Decided December 14, 1923PublishedCited by 10 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtMorrill, J.

This is an action to recover for personal injuries sustained by plaintiff’s intestate through the alleged negligent sale by defendant’s servant to one Freeman of a poisonous preparation known as oil of checkerberrv, in place of essence of checkerberry; the poison was taken by deceased and resulted in his death.

The case is reported to the Law Court for determination of the legal rights of the parties, upon so much of the evidence as is legally admissible; the certificate of the presiding Justice is in the usual form. All technical questions of pleading are deemed to be waived. Whitman v.…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Thomas v. . WinchesterNew York Court of Appeals · 1852
  2. Duggan v. Bay State Street Railway Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1918
  3. Wellington v. Downer Kerosene Oil Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1870
  4. Norton v. SewallMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1870
  5. Beaucage v. MercerMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1910

3Cited by10 opinions

  1. Oliver v. MilesMississippi Supreme Court · 1926
  2. Kunkel v. AlgerMassachusetts Appeals Court · 1980
  3. Field v. WebberSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1933
  4. Morey v. StrattonSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 2000
  5. Ward v. Cumberland County Power & Light Co.Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1936

5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API