Legal Opinion
R. Dunkel, Inc. v. V. Barletta Co.
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Decided December 28, 1938PublishedCited by 15 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtDolan, J.
These are three actions of tort to recover damages for injuries occasioned to property of the plaintiffs by flowing water, and alleged to have been caused by the negligence of the defendant. The cases were tried to a jury which rendered a verdict for the defendant in each case. The exceptions are identical in each case, and are to the refusal of the judge to instruct the jury in accordance with the plaintiffs’ requests numbered 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8 and 9.
There was evidence tending to show that the plaintiff Dunkel owned certain premises consisting of store buildings, including a basement,…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- Barnes v. Berkshire Street Railway Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1932
- Ashapa v. ReedMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1932
- Commonwealth v. PolianMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1934
- Capano v. MelchionnoMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1937
- Fanciullo v. B. G. & S. Theatre Corp.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1937
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by15 opinions
- Wadsworth v. Boston Gas Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1967
- Donnelly v. LarkinMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1951
- Mitchell v. Walton Lunch Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1940
- Ross v. NourseMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1953
- Shurdut v. John Hancock Mutual Life InsuranceMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1947
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.