O'DAY v. Theran
Massachusetts Appeals Court
1Opinion of the CourtKass, J.
We draw our facts from a master’s subsidiary findings, which are binding upon us unless they are clearly erroneous, mutually inconsistent, contradictory, or vitiated in view of the controlling law. Mass.R.Civ.P. 53(e)(2), 365 Mass. 820 (1974). Selectmen of Hatfield v. Garvey, 362 Mass. 821, 825 (1973). Michelson v. Aronson, 4 Mass. App. Ct. 182,190 (1976). On April 22,1974, Gemico Corporation (Gemico), a corporation which the plaintiff and her husband, George D. O’Day (O’Day), controlled, entered into a letter agreement with the defendants concerning financing of the production and marketing…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Lever Brothers Company v. International Chemical Workers Union, Local 217Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1976
- Boston Ice Co. v. PotterMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1877
- Winchester v. HowardMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1867
- Michelson v. AronsonMassachusetts Appeals Court · 1976
- Board of Selectmen of Hatfield v. GarveyMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1973
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- Perkins v. RichMassachusetts Appeals Court · 1981
- A. Leo Nash Steel Corp. v. Southern New England Steel Erection Co.Massachusetts Appeals Court · 1980