Legal Opinion

Lurensky v. Merchants Beef Co.

Massachusetts Appeals Court

Decided July 14, 1980PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

The order allowing the defendants’ motion for summary judgment and the judgment are reversed for the reason (if no other) that the only effect of the subsidiary facts set up in the affidavits (and their supporting data) filed in support of the motion was to create ultimate questions of fact on which reasonable minds could differ concerning the propriety and reasonableness of the corporate expenditures and practices which are challenged in the amended complaint. See and compare Community Natl. Bank v. Dawes, 369 Mass. 550, 554 (1976); Dolloff v. School Comm. of Methuen, 9 Mass. App. Ct. 502,…

2Cases cited13 opinions

  1. United States v. Diebold, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1962
  2. TSC Industries, Inc. v. Northway, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1976
  3. Community National Bank v. DawesMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1976
  4. Barbara R. Gross v. Southern Railway Company, Nancy Ruth Canipelli v. Southern Railway CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1969
  5. Zweig v. Hearst Corp.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1975

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

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Thomas v. ChristensenMassachusetts Appeals Court · 1981
  2. Mutual Bank for Savings v. SilvermanMassachusetts Appeals Court · 1982
  3. Guaranty Bank & Trust Co. v. Winchendon Savings BankMassachusetts District Court, Appellate Division · 1981

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

Powered by the Exa API