Leonardo v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co.
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
1Opinion of the CourtSpalding, J.
The original plaintiff in these actions of tort was Mary L. Soares and she will be referred to hereinafter as the plaintiff. 2 The defendants are The Great Atlantic and Pacific Tea Company (hereinafter called A & P), and Simie Beserosky. At the conclusion of the evidence the judge granted A & P’s motion for a directed verdict, subject to the plaintiff’s exception. A similar motion presented by the defendant Beserosky was denied and the case was submitted to the jury who returned a verdict for the defendant. The cases come here by report and the questions presented are whether the judge erred…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Underhill v. ShactmanMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1958
- Hannon v. SchwartzMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1939
- Frizzell v. Metropolitan Coal Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1937
- Nunan v. Dudley Properties, Inc.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1950
- Schallinger v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1956
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by16 opinions
- Harrigan v. City of RenoNevada Supreme Court · 1970
- Hopkins v. F. W. Woolworth Co.Massachusetts Appeals Court · 1981
- Leary v. Lawrence Sales Corp.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1971
- Marsden v. Eastern Gas & Fuel AssociatesMassachusetts Appeals Court · 1979
- Sheehan v. El Johnan, Inc.Massachusetts Appeals Court · 1995
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.