Legal Opinion

McElaney v. Hubby

Massachusetts Appeals Court

Decided March 5, 1975PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

The sole issue raised by the plaintiffs’ appeal in this action for damages arising from a motor vehicle accident is the propriety of the allowance of the defendant’s motion for directed verdicts. The plaintiffs’ reliance on statements appearing in their unanswered notice to admit facts and in their bill of exceptions is misplaced, as none of the statements therein is properly before us: the notice to admit facts was never introduced in evidence (Gordon v. American Tankers Corp. 286 Mass. 349, 354 [1934]), and there is no showing of timely compliance with the notice requirements of G. L. c.…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Jennings v. BragdonMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1935
  2. Olofson v. KilgallonMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1973
  3. Deutsch v. OrmsbyMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1968
  4. Gordon v. American Tankers Corp.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1934
  5. Frazier v. CordialinoMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1969

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

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Priestley v. Sharaf's, Inc.Massachusetts Appeals Court · 1976
  2. Hunter v. State Street Garage Corp.Massachusetts Appeals Court · 1976

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

Powered by the Exa API