Haddad v. Board of Appeals
Massachusetts Appeals Court
1Opinion of the Court
It is impossible to give intelligent consideration to any of the plaintiffs’ contentions without (a) the trial transcript and (b) the unanswered demands for admissions of fact which the judge made parts of his findings. None of that material has been reproduced in the plaintiffs’ appendix, and “we see no occasion to send for the original papers in order to discover whether there is any merit to the ... [plaintiffs’] contentions.” Slater v. Burnham Corp. ante, 791 (1976). See also Storer v. Anderson, ante, 809 (1976).
Judgment affirmed.
2Cited by10 opinions
- Kunen v. First Agricultural National BankMassachusetts Appeals Court · 1978
- Westinghouse Electric Supply Co. v. Healy Corp.Massachusetts Appeals Court · 1977
- Woodward v. School Committee of SharonMassachusetts Appeals Court · 1977
- B. P. W. Plastics Corp. v. Massachusetts Electric Co.Massachusetts Appeals Court · 1977
- Donoghue v. DonoghueMassachusetts Appeals Court · 1977
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.