Legal Opinion

Lindsay v. Romano

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Decided July 9, 1998PublishedCited by 42 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtAbrams, J.

At issue is whether the plaintiff’s medical malpractice action was time barred. A judge of the Superior Court allowed the defendant’s motion for summary judgment, concluding that the limitations period set forth in G. L. c. 260, § 4, had run. The Appeals Court affirmed, pursuant to its rule 1:28. Lindsay v. Romano, 43 Mass. App. Ct. 1120 (1997). We allowed the plaintiff’s application for further appellate review. We reverse the judgment of the Superior Court and remand for further proceedings.

1. Facts. Because the case is before us on the defendant’s motion for summary judgment, we assume the…

2Cases cited15 opinions

  1. Kourouvacilis v. General Motors Corp.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1991
  2. Pederson v. Time, Inc.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1989
  3. Attorney General v. BaileyMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1982
  4. Riley v. PresnellMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1991
  5. Esther HAYDEN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF MT. PLEASANT, TEXAS, a Corporation, Defendant-AppelleeCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1979

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

3Cited by42 opinions

  1. Taygeta Corp. v. Varian Associates, Inc.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 2002
  2. Rathje v. Mercy HospitalSupreme Court of Iowa · 2008
  3. Silvestris v. Tantasqua Regional School DistrictMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 2006
  4. O'Connor v. RedstoneMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 2008
  5. Clean Harbors, Inc. v. John Hancock Life InsuranceMassachusetts Appeals Court · 2005

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

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

Powered by the Exa API