Legal Opinion
Cahalane v. Poust
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Decided March 7, 1956PublishedCited by 24 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtWhittemore, J.
This action of tort for personal injury to the plaintiff by falling on steps of property owned by the defendants resulted in a verdict for the defendants. The plaintiff excepted to the judge’s charge to the jury, in general, and specifically to the statements “Counsel know what they have to prove to get to the jury” and “Do you suppose anybody talked with them afterwards?” The exceptions to the charge must be sustained.
In a number of cases we have held that a general exception to an entire charge cannot be sustained. See, for example, Commonwealth v. Duncan, 250 Mass. 405, 407; Commonwealth…
2Cases cited15 opinions
- Whitney v. Wellesley & Boston Street Railway Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1908
- Commonwealth v. McDonaldMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1928
- Plummer v. Boston Elevated Railway Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1908
- Hathaway v. Checker Taxi Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1947
- Callahan v. Fleischman Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1928
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by24 opinions
- Commonwealth v. BoydMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1975
- Commonwealth v. FergusonMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1974
- Commonwealth v. BettencourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1972
- Commonwealth v. BinkiewiczMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1961
- Commonwealth v. SneedMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1978
19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.