Legal Opinion

Douglas v. Whittaker

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Decided June 9, 1949PublishedCited by 39 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtRonan, J.

The plaintiff brought this action of tort to recover for personal injuries alleged to have been sustained when he came in contact with the defendant’s automobile. The plaintiff excepted to the granting of a motion for a di*399rected verdict for the defendant after the opening statement of the plaintiff’s counsel.

The purpose of an opening statement is to introduce to the judge and jury the particular action which is about to be tried and to acquaint them with the specific case which has been previously described to them in a formal manner by a reading of the declaration. The opening is a sort of…

2Cases cited45 opinions

  1. Kelly v. Railway Express Agency, Inc.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1943
  2. Meeney v. DoyleMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1931
  3. Morrison v. MedagliaMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1934
  4. Stevens v. NicholsMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1892
  5. Hey v. PrimeMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1908

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

3Cited by39 opinions

  1. Singarella v. City of BostonMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1961
  2. Sereni v. Star Sportswear Manufacturing Corp.Massachusetts Appeals Court · 1987
  3. Rombola v. CosindasMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1966
  4. Wilkinson v. New England Telephone & Telegraph Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1951
  5. Hubert v. Melrose-Wakefield Hospital Ass'nMassachusetts Appeals Court · 1996

34 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