Legal Opinion
Himelfarb v. Novadel Agene Corp.
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Decided March 25, 1940PublishedCited by 64 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtCox, J.
This is an action of tort to recover for personal injuries. The Appellate Division for the Northern District found that there was prejudicial error in the denial of the defendant’s first and second requests for rulings, which were as follows: “1. Upon all the evidence there is sufficient evidence to warrant the court in finding under all the circumstances of this case that the defendant was not negligent. 2. Upon all the evidence there is sufficient evidence to warrant the court in finding under all the circumstances of this case that the plaintiff was contributorily negligent.” The trial…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Bresnick v. HeathMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1935
- Strong v. Haverhill Electric Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1938
- Adamaitis v. Metropolitan Life InsuranceMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1936
- Baker v. DavisMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1938
- Marquis v. MessierMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1939
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by64 opinions
- Perry v. HanoverMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1943
- Liberatore v. Town of FraminghamMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1944
- Memishian v. PhippsMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1942
- Rummel v. PetersMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1943
- DiGesse v. Columbia Pontiac Co. Inc.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1975
59 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.