Armstrong v. Stone
Massachusetts Appeals Court
1Opinion of the Court
Judgment was properly entered for the defendant (a) in light of and for reasons given by the master in par. 11 of his subsidiary findings and in pars. 4b, 5, 8, 9 and 12 of his general findings and (b) for the reason given by the judge when he denied the plaintiff’s motion to strike the aforementioned pars. 8, 9 and 12 and allowed the defendant’s motion to adopt the *1013master’s report. Creed v. Apog, 6 Mass. App. Ct. 365, 372-373 (1978), modified on another point, 377 Mass. 522 (1979). Contrast Lipis v. Landano, 7 Mass. App. Ct. 894 (1979). The plaintiff’s reliance on Tristram’s Landing Inc. v.…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Tristram's Landing, Inc. v. WaitMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1975
- Creed v. ApogMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1979
- Kinchla v. WelshMassachusetts Appeals Court · 1979
- Creed v. ApogMassachusetts Appeals Court · 1978
- Kenny v. DiCensoMassachusetts Appeals Court · 1980
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.